DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.02 OF 2022
Sri Sibaram Panda
S/O: Late Uadayanath Panda
Village/Po- Kurtamgarh
P.S- Tumudibandha
Dist- Kandhamal. ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager
Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.
At- Plot No.1886, Mainroad, Budharaja,
In front of Orissa State Cooperative Bank,
Atha Colony, 2nd floor
2. Sri Ram General Insurance Co.Ltd.
At- E-8, EPIP, Sitapura Industrial area, Jaipur
Po- Jaipur-302022
Rajastan State …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member .
For the Complainant: Mr. Bijay Kumar Sahu.Adv.
For O.p No.1- None(Ex-parte)
For O.p No.2 - None(Ex-parte)
Date of Argument: 06.06.2022
Date of Order: 17.06.2022
-2-
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi. Member
The Complainant Sri.Sibaram Panda has filed this case U/S 35 of C.P Act 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for not paying his insurance claim to the tuneof 3, 10,000/- in spite of submission of all the required papers by him and praying therein for a direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.3, 10,000/- with interest.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the Bolera bearing vehicle No. OD12A0075. The vehicle was insured with the OPs i.e Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. and the insurance policy was valid from31/12/2019 to 30/12/2020. During the force of the policy the vehicle met with an accident on 01/01/2020. After the accident necessary police FIR was lodged before IIC,Rayagada and intimation was given to the insurance company and one Satya brata Choudhury was appointed to conduct the survey of the said vehicle and he allowed for the repairing of the vehicle after survey. After completion of repair, the final bill was prepared for Rs.2, 85,365/-. It is further stated on the date of accident, all the documents were valid along with the driving license of the driver and there was no bar on the part of the OP to withhold the claim to the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that soon after the accident, he lodged FIR to the police. The surveyor visited the spot and assessed the loss and 8 persons were travelling in the said vehicle. The vehicle was also re- inspected after repair by the surveyor. But the OP is sitting over the matter for which he has filed this case before this Commission and prayed for the reliefs as stated in the complaint petition.
- Notice was issued to the OPs by registered post but the OPs preferred not to appear nor contested the case in any manner. The Ops were therefore set ex-parte on 04.06.2022 and the Commission proceeded to disposed off the matter ex-parte.
- The petitioner in support of his case has filed the copy of the FIR dtd. 02.01.2020, copy of the inspection report of the MVI, Rayagada dtd.03.01.2020, copy of the Insurance certificate, copy of the Aadhar card of the petitioner, Copy of the permit and Copy of the photos on the accident spot, copy of the news published in daily news paper, copy of the job card and repair bills. He has also filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.
- Notice was issued to the OPs by registered post which was duly served on them. Even after receipt of the notice of this Commission along with the complaint petition, the OPs neither appeared nor challenged the allegations raised against them, for which it is deemed to have been admitted by them.
- On perusal of the documents it is seen that the insurance policy was in force at the time of occurrence and the driver was having a valid driving license and the other relevant documents such as R.C. and permit of the vehicle were also valid. It is also seen from the documents on records that the complainant has lodged an FIR with police soon after the occurrence and the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Rayagada District has also examined the vehicle on the spot. The Complainant in his evidence in chief has stated that survey of the vehicle by the surveyor has been done on the spot and re- inspection by the surveyor has been done after repair. So all these relevant documents relating to accident and claim have been filed by the petitioner.
- The evidence led by the petitioner stands an uncontroverted and the petitioner in his evidence in para-5 has specifically stated that in spite of submission of all required documents, the OP is sitting over the matter.
- After scrutinizing all the documents filed by the petitioner and the evidence led by him it leads us to a clear conclusion that the OPs have deliberately and willfully harassed the petitioner and a case of deficiency in service and harassment is well made out against the OPs and hence the order.
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the OPs. The Ops are made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the petitioner. The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2, 85,365/-(Two Lakhs eighty five thousand three hundred sixty five) only to the petitioner towards the cost of repair of the vehicle. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty five thousand)only for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied with in a period of 30days failing which it will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.
I Agree
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 17th day of June 2022 in the presence of the parties.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
