Orissa

Jajapur

CC/91/2022

Biranchi Narayan Mahalik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Srinibas Barik.

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : JAJPUR : ODISHA .

Consumer Complaint No. 91 / 2022.

Date of filing Complaint   :-     22.07.2022.

Date of Argument             :-     20.01.2023

Date of Order                   :-     24.02.2023.                  

Dated the 24^th day of February 2023.

Biranchi Narayan Mahalik, S/o:- Brahmananda Mahalik,

Vill:- Chikana, Po:- Brahmanigaon, P.S:- Binjharpur,

 Dist:- Jajpur, (Odisha) Pin – 755 027.                  .  .  .  .  Complainant.                                                                                                                           

                             Versus.

 

1.  The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Upstair of Overseas Bank, Parabeda Stadium, Main Road,

New Street, Bikram Nagar, Jaypur, Dist:-Koraput-764001.

2. The Circle Head, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 

Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Pin-751007.

3. The Proprietor of Saisantoshi, Auto Workshop,

Namely-A, Gouri Sankar, Near Simplex, NH-26,

Jaypur, Dist:- Koraput.

4. Bipin Patra, Surveyor, New India Assurance

Co. Ltd., Upstair of Overseas Bank, Parabeda

Stadium, Main Road, New Street, Bikram Nagar,

Jaypur, Dist:- Korapur – 764001.....Opp. Parties.

 

P R E S E N T S.

1.  Smt. Susmita Mishra,President,

      2.    Sri Bibekananda Das,       Member (I/c).

             Counsels appeared for the parties.                           

For the Complainant        :-     Srinibas Barik, Advocate. 

For the Opp. Parties         :-     Ashok Kumar Dash, Advocate.

J U D G M E N T.

SRI BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER (I/c)  :-

            The present C.C. No. 91/2022 is taken up today for order.  The complaint petition has been filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant’s vehicle insured under O.P.No.1 & 2.  O.P.No.3 is the Servicing Workshop Centre.  Complainant’s vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-33-AB-6108 Pickup Goods Carrier Vehicle, insured by insurer New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for a sum assured of Rs.5,90,000/-.  The complainant-Cum-Driver was driving the said vehicle for maintaining his livelihood & as such he is a consumer under the C.P. Act, 2019.  Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident at Jeypore-Malkangiri Road on dtd.12.12.2021 which was duly informed to the O.I.C. of Govindapalli Out Post on the very same date.  The same was also duly informed to the Insurance Company, who deputed Surveyor who estimated the loss/damage to a tune of Rs.2,32,500/- and the said amount paid to O.P.No.3 (As per written version of the O.Ps) on dtd.27.06.2022 & dtd.28.06.2022 through NEFT & the same was communicated by the O.Ps to the complainant.  But the O.P.No.3 not released the vehicle in question & demanded more amount from the complainant, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- instantly.  However the complainant forced to pay Rs.80,000/- on different dates to O.P.No.3 namely A. Gouri Sankar (the Proprietor of Sai Santoshi Auto Workshop) vide his SBI Account No. 20096005565 (Xerox copy annexed).  As per the estimate of O.P.No.3 the value for the repairing cost is Rs. 2,73,660/-.  But the Insurance Company has only paid Rs. 2,32,500/- O.P.No.3 (As per written version of Insurance Company) and the complainant paid Rs. 80,000/- in total Rs.3,12,500/- has already been received by O.P.No.3.  There is no justification on part of O.P.No.3 to retain the vehicle in his custody without handing over the same to the complainant even after receiving more amount than what he estimated.

            The vehicle insured for Rs. 5,90,000/-.  The Surveyor appointed by O.P.No.1 & 2 estimated damage & paid Rs.2,32,500/-  in shape of NEFT to O.P.No.3.  The Surveyor Bipinbihari Patra (O.P.No.4) assessed the loss/damage not taking into other factor & arbitrarily assessed the same without cogent evidence produced before this Commission for removal of reasonable doubt if the O.P.No.3 not satisfied with the payment of O.P.No.1 & 2 and the excess demand of O.P.No.3 was duly complied by the complainant on payment of Rs. 80,000/- through bank in favour of A. Gouri Sankar (the Proprietor, O.P.No.3) towards repair of the vehicle of complainant.

 

            From the above observations, we are of the opinion that the O.P.No.1 to 4 have committed gross illegality, unfair trade practice and so also deficiency in service for not paying full & final amount under a Insurance contract & not releasing the vehicle by O.P.No.3 after receipt of excess amount than the estimated cost.  The O.P.No.1 & 2 received the premium as insurer to compensate any misfortune occurred during the period of policy in force.  So, there is no question of part payment arises due to wrong assessment of the Surveyor.  It is not correct that the Surveyor being appointed as per IRDA rules & regulations estimated fairly loss amount for a damage of a higher value.  The complainant/owner forced to pay additional balance amount out of his pocket for repair of the vehicle which has been sufficiently insured.  This Commission came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company must pay the total value of the repair of the vehicle along with interest for damage sustained in the accident.  Part payment/insufficient payment made by O.P.No.1 & 2 is completely a gross illegality which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  and failed to follow strict principle of liability. 

            Further, it is our considered view that O.P.No.3 already received Rs.3,12,500/- in total from the O..P.No.1 & 2 and complainant which is more than the estimated cost.  The O.P.No.3 has got no right to retain the vehicle illegally without any justified reason, should have released the vehicle.  The O.P.No.3 neither appeared nor filed any written version in this proceeding and for which he has been set ex-parte on dtd.03.12.2022.  He has no legal authority for retention of the vehicle even after receiving Rs.3,12,500/- towards repair of the vehicle and as such he has committed gross negligence by not releasing the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                                        O R D E R.

            In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is directed that, O.P. No.3 shall release the vehicle of the complainant and also pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand)only for compensation towards mental agony & harassment for illegal retention of the vehicle undergone and loss of livelihood to the complainant, failing which the O.P. No.3 shall pay @ 12% interest per annum till its realization along with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation cost in addition to the above amount.  It is further directed that, O.P. No.1 & 2 shall pay Rs. 2,73,660/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy three thousand six hundred sixty)only towards the cost of the repair of the vehicle with @ 12% per annum from the claim till its realization and it is also directed that O.P. No.1 & 2 shall refund Rs.80,000/-  (Rupees eighty thousand) only to the complainant (the amount already paid by the complainant to the O.P.No.3) along with Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for mental agony and harassment undergone for the said period and financial loss suffered by the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for cost of this litigation.  All the above order shall be complied by the O.Ps within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3 shall be liable U/S 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The O.P. No.1 & 2 are at liberty to adjust the amount with O.P. No.3 if they have already paid Rs.2,32,500/- to him by paying the rest balance amount towards the cost of repairing of the vehicle.  The consumer complaint is allowed on contest.

            Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

            Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24^th   day of February 2023.