DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.02 OF 2021
Date of Filing : 04.01.2021
Date of Order : 28.11.2022
Sri. Rabindra Kumar Sahoo
S/O: late Udhab Sahoo
AT-Shastri Nagar,Peonpada
PO/PS- Phulbani town,
Dist- Kandhamal. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurances Co.Ltd.
Phulbani Branch, Phulbani
AT- Bikash Plaza Market Complex
Main Road ,Phulbani
DIST- Kandhamal ………………………….. Opp. Party
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Mr.H.Ch.Maharana Advocate & associates
For O.P. : Mr. Nirod Kumar Patra Advocate
JUDGEMENT
Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, President
The complainant Rabindra Kumar Sahu has filed this case U/S 12 of the CP Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not paying his insurance claim and praying therein for a direction to O.P to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,758/-(two lakhs seventy thousand seven hundred fifty eight)only with interest@ 12% P.A from the date of due and a sum of Rs,1,00000/-(one lakh)only towards harassment and a sum of Rs.20000/- towards cost of litigation.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.OR02BZ2222 which was insured with New India Assurance company Limited for the period from 10.05.2019 to 09.05.2020. During the force of the policy on 07.06.2019 the vehicle met with an accident at Madikunda Chhak of Phulbani town causing death to one person and leading to injury of some other persons. The accident caused severe damage to the vehicle and after release of the vehicle on Zima from police the vehicle was shifted to Aditya Motors Cuttack for repair where the vehicle was repaired at an cost of Rs,2,70,758/-( two lakhs seventy thousand seven hundred fifty eight)only on dated 30.06.2020. Even though all the papers relating to the accident were submitted to the Insurance Company the claim was rejected for which he has filed this complaint petition praying therein for direction to the O.P to pay a sum of Rs,2,70,758/-(two lakhs seventy thousand seven hundred fifty eight)only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of actual bill, a sum of Rs.1,00000/-(One lakh)only towards harassment and mental agony and a sum of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand)only towards cost of litigation.
- After receipt of notice from this Commission the O.P appeared through his Advocate and admitted that the Insurance policy was in force on the date of accident.
- It is submitted by the O.P. that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner under the complete influence of alcohol which is reveled from the investigation report of the panel investigator Mr. G.C.Swain and from the reports published in the daily news papers on 08.06.2019. It is submitted that the driver did not take any precautionary measures to prevent the accident but knowingly caused the accident to many persons, scooter and motorcycle from Narayani Road to Madikunda Chhak of Phulbani at the relevant time of accident. The O.P did not admit the damages caused to the vehicle as the police report and statement of witnesses recorded by police revealed any damage to the vehicle. The O.P on the basis of the information received from the complainant appointed Mr.B.K.Mohapatra for final Survey who submitted his report quantifying the loss at Rs,1,50,000/-(one lakh fifty thousand)only after deducting the cost of salvage and policy excess. The O.P reputed the claim as the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol which violates the policy conditions. As the driver of the offending vehicle was under the complete influence of liquor leading to violation of the policy condition relating to limitation of use and the claim has been rightly repudiated and the case be dismissed with costs in his favor.
- The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the vehicle particulars, copy of the insurance certificate, copy of the letter of the O.P dt.16.07.2019 address to the complainant, copy of the tax invoice issue by Aditya Motors for Rs.2,70,798/-(two lakhs seventy thousand seven hundred ninety eight)only., Copy of the repudiation letter dt.30.06.2020,copy of the money receipt dt.26.06.2020 for Rs.20,000/-,copy of the letter dt.12.11.2020 of Aditya Motors to the complainant, copy of the money receipt showing payment to Aditya Motors by the complainant.
- On the other hand the O.P has filed copy of the repudiation letter dt.30.06.2020, copy of the liability computation sheet, copy of the motor claim approval note, copy of the verification sheet, copy of the motor survey report of Surveyor Mr. B.K. Mohapatra, copy of the final Survey report ,copy of the report of Gourang Charan Swain along with its enclosure and copy of the FIR relating to the case along with the final form.
- The only point for adjudication of the case is whether the O.P, has rightly repudiated the claim or not ?
The claim has been rejected on the sole ground that as the their independent investigation report reveals that the driver driving the vehicle at material time of accident was fully under influence of alcohol. In order to substantiate their case the O.P has reliedon the report of Gourang Chran Swain who was appointed as Investigator by him for the enquiry of this case. The Investigator has relied on certain news published in some news papers and on the statement of three persons namely Keshab Behera, Amitab Raffi and another Prabin Behera. The copy of the statements appears to have written by one person but the name of the scribe and the name of the witnesses are conspicuously absent in those copies. The investigator is a person who has been appointed by the insurance company and has been paid by the insurance company to discharge his duties. This report has not been examined by any lawful authority and has been declared to be correct. The Insurance company has not filed the affidavit of those persons whose statement has been filed before this Commission.
- On the other hand the FIR lodged by Pradeep Muni does not speak of the influence of liquor over the driver at the time of accident. Police in his final form has not cited that the accident has occurred due to the intoxication of the driver. None of the witnesses in their u/s 161Cr.p.c statement have stated the cause of accident to be intoxication of the driver. So the cause of reputation cited by the insurance company is incorrect and repudiation of the claim is unjustified.
- The next question whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount as assessed by the Surveyor or as per the tax invoice issued by the authorized dealer M/S Aditya Motors Cuttack ? It is settle principle of law that Surveyor’s report is definitely a valuable document so far as the survey of any damage vehicle is concerned . But the Surveyor has to cite specific reason regarding reduction of the claim amount. In the instant case the surveyor has not cited any reason as to why the estimate prepared by the authorized service Centre of the company has been reduced . As the vehicle has been repaired at the authorized service Centre of the manufacture the insurance company has to pay the cost of repair of the damaged vehicle.
- It is clear from the discussion made in the preceeding paragraphs that the claim has been repudiated on a fake ground and the cost of repair made in the authorized service Centre has been reduced with out any justifiable reason. It amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well. As a case of deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice is made out against the O.P, he is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss sustained by him and hence the order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is made liable for causing deficiency in service and for practising unfair trade practice. The O.P is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,798/-(two lakh seventy thousand seven hundred ninety eight)only to the petitioner with interest at the rate of9% per annum with effect from 30.06.2020 till it is actual paid to the complainant. The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs,5000/-(five thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied with in a period of 30days from the date of receipt of this order.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 28th day of November2022 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
