DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 45 OF 2016

Jaldhar Sahoo (37 Yrs),

S/O- Tirthabasi Sahoo,

RO:Gayatribihar, Purunabasti, PO-Kalimandir Road,   

PS/ Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha, ……..…………………….….………………Complainant.

Versus

1. Branch Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,

AT- Mangalbazar Road,

PO/PS/Dist- Jharsuguda (Odisha).

2. Suresh Chandra Patel,

A.D.O of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

AT- Mangalbazar Road,

PO/PS/Dist- Jharsuguda (Odisha).……………….…….…………..Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                       N.K. Mishra, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1                                 B.K.Purohit, Adv &. Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.2                                G.K.Pattnaik, Adv. & Associates.

Date of Order: 21.11.2017

Present

1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.

                                                                                  2. Shri Santosh Kumar Ojha, Member.

                                                                                  3. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).

Shri Sundarlal Behera, President : The brief facts of this complainant’s case is that, the complainant above named insured his vehicle bearing No. OD 23 3507 with the O.P. Insurance company for a period from  dt.12.12.2014 to 11.12.2015 for Rs.3,89,556/- only in the intervening night of on dtd.15/16. 01.2015 while the insured vehicle  parked  in front of Lachhu Go down, Jharsuguda and it was stolen by some miscreant.  Immediately on the next morning i.e. on dt.16.01.2015, FIR was lodged before the Jharsuguda Police Station vide PS Case No. 22 dtd.16.01.2015.  The complainant is also intimated the theft of the vehicle to the O.P Insurance company and thereafter observing all formalities required for initiated insurance claim preferred claim under the policy before the O.P Insurance company but unfortunately, after more than one year it was repudiated on dtd. 08.03.2016 due to misrepresentation of the complainant as the insured has availed NCB of 25% in the policy period. But upon NCB confirmation from previous insurance it could be noticed that there was a claim in the previous policy period.  The said repudiation letter dtd. 18.03.2016 was communicated to the insurer/ complainant.  Aggrieved with the said repudiation the complainant has filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.ps. Insurance company.

            The O.Ps. Insurance company appeared and filed written version through their learned counsel admitting the fact of insurance and submitted that while processing the claim it was found that there was a previous claim under the previous policy of the national Insurance company and was settled.  But while taking the present policy in question the insured by way of misrepresentation had availed discount of 25% from the total premium and there by committed breach of trust with the O.P. Insurance company and claiming the same amounts violation of policy condition No.8.  According to the O.P Insurance Company as the insured has violated the policy condition is not entitled to any claim under this policy. Accordingly claiming the repudiation to be correct and justified.

Heard from the parties, gone through the case record and documents available. Here matter related to theft of the vehicle which has not been recovered till date.  For insurance claim only mandatory requirement is evidence of theft which is not denied by the O.P Insurance Company. That the insured vehicle was lost forever and the complainant sustained a huge financial loss due to theft of his vehicle. In the case of theft of the vehicle breach of conditions is not germane, even assuming that there was a breach of condition of insurance policy, the O.P Insurance Company ought to have settled the claim of the complainant on non-standard basis.  The O.P Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim in toto in case of loss of vehicle due to theft.  In our opinion the complainant is entitled to get the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the IDV of Rs.3,89,556/- only from the O.P Insurance Company.  We do not found any deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2.

Keeping in view of facts and circumstances, we therefore allowed partly the complaint of the complainant  and  directing the O.P NO.1 Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,92,167/- (Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand one hundred sixty seven) only (i.e. 75% of IDV value of Rs.3,89,556/-) to the complainant along with pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards harassment,mental agony including litigation costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.P.No.1 shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum on the above mentioned awarded amounts till realization.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 21^st day of November’ 2017. Free copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

                             I Agree.                                     I Agree.

                                        .

                     A. Nanda, Member (W)    S.K.Ojha, Member     S.L.Behera, President 

                                               Dictated and corrected by me.

 S.L.Behera, President