DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : JAJPUR.
Presents:- 1. Smt. Susmita Mishra President,
2. Sri Bibekananda Das Member (I/c).
Dated the 22nd day of December 2022.
C.C. Case No. 07 / 2021.
Ujwal Kumar Das,
S/o:- Keshab Chandra Das,
Vill:- Bari, Po:- Bari-Cuttack,
P.S:- Bari-Ramachandrapur,
Dist:- Jajpur. ….......Complainant.
Versus.
The Claim Manager,
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Unit-3, New Trade Center, Paradeep,
Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, Pin-754142. . ...Opp. Party.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant :- Srikant Mohapatra, Advocate & Associates,
For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Kallol Ghosh, Advocate & Associate.
Date of filing Complaint :- 20.01.2021,
Date of Argument :- 02.12.2022,
Date of Oder :- 22.12.2022.
MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER (I/c) :-
This C.C. Case No. 7 of 2021 is taken up today for order. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties and perused all the materials/documents available on record. This case has been filed U/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019.
Brief fact:-
The complainant purchased one Maruti Wagon-R Car Vide Regd. No. OR-02-AW-3341 from Sk. Mohammed Ismail and charged the ownership on dt. 03.07.2019 by submitting all the relevant documents before the competent authority. The insurance of the said vehicle was also done on dt. 25.01.2020 by the agent of the O.P. and the same was valid upto 24.01.2021 and the agent of the O.P. gave the Insurance Policy to the complainant (xerox copy annexed). But after receiving the same the complainant came to know that the said vehicle was insured by the O.P. in the name of the previous owner of the said vehicle i.e. in the name of Sk. Mohammed Ismail. Thereafter the said vehicle met with a fire accident on dt. 09.09.2020. The incident duly reported in Bari-Ramachandrapur Police Station vide P.S. Case No. 188/2020 and so also the Asst. Fire Officer of Jajpur Fire Station issued Fire Incident Certificate on dt. 15.09.2020 to the complainant (xerox copy annexed). The said fact has been duly intimated to the Claim Manager of the O.P. and after receipt of the said information the O.P. deputed Surveyor and the Surveyor after survey submitted the report to the O.P. by admitting the complainant as the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The complainant submitted the estimated damage cost of Rs.4,45,950/- of the vehicle to the O.P. as per the instruction of the Surveyor and given in writing to settle the claim on dt.13.10.2020 (xerox copy annexed). But the O.P. did not release the claimed amount after repeated approaches made by the complainant, being aggrieved by such inaction of the O.P. the complainant compelled to file the present Consumer Complaint before this Commission for redressal of his grievances.
Issues :-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the C.P. Act, 2019 ?
- Whether the Consumer Complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation ?
- Repudiation of Insurance claim by the O.P. whether amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice ?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to the claimed amount as per his prayer due to fire accident of his vehicle during a valid Insurance Policy issued by the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief sought for ?
Issue No. 1 :-
That the complainant is a consumer U/s 2 (42) of C.P. Act, 2019 where the O.P. is a service provider and rendered services to the complainant relating to Insurance.
Issue No. 2 :-
The complainant intimated the O.P. regarding the fire accident of his vehicle and the O.P. by admitting the incident of the complainant sent the Surveyor to assess the damage of the vehicle. Further the O.P. has not raised the issue of limitation, therefore the locus standi continued since the date of filing of the present consumer complaint. So the consumer complaint has been filed is well within the prescribed period of limitation.
Issue No. 3 :-
It was held by many State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and also by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, delay in settlement of claim is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. In the present case in hand the vehicle was caught fire and which is investigated by the Police and so also Fire Incident Certificate was issued by the Asst. Fire Officer, Jajpur Fire Station. That apart the O.P. sent its Surveyor to investigate the matter after receipt of claim from the complainant and the Surveyor also gave report that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. In the contract of Insurance Policy, it is the duty of the insurer to duly compensate the insured for the damage to the vehicle sustained by the fire accident and the same misfortune occurred during the validity of Insurance Policy. Therefore, the insurer (O.P.) is liable to pay the damage sustained by such fire accident. It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi that the insured is entitle to receive compensation on the basis of value shown in the Insurance Policy. The O.P. has repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such he committed deficiency in service and so also unfair trade practice.
Issue No. 4 & 5 :-
The vehicle was previously registered in the name of Sk. Mohammed Ismail bearing No. OR-02-AW-3341 which has been transferred in the name of the complainant namely Ujwal Kumar Das before the competent authority (xerox copy annexed) on dt. 03.07.2019. The complainant having ownership given the R.C. Book issued by the Registering Authority, Bhubaneswar. The complainant handed over the relevant documents including the R.C. Book to the agent namely Tapan Kumar Panda of O.P. for renewal of the insurance of the vehicle in question, though the insurance policy was renewed by the agent of the O.P., but the same was renewed in the name of the previous owner of the vehicle Sk. Mohammed Ismail. The agent negligently without producing the new registration certificate insured the vehicle in old owner’s name which is not expected from a insurance agent working under the O.P. The act of the agent prejudiced the complainant where the previous owner of the said vehicle reflected in the insurance policy. Such act of agent of the O.P. which prejudiced the complainant for which the O.P. is liable vicariously during a valid insurance policy. In a reported case of Hon’ble National Commission decided in 2014 (2) CPR, Page-730.
“the insurance company is vicariously liable for acts of their agent”
The insurer taken premium from the complainant for the same Regd. No. Vehicle OR-02-AW-3341 when the ownership changed. It was the duty and responsibility of the agent to produce the new registration certificate before the O.P. which has not done by him. Today the vehicle’s status available on every R.T.O. website where ownership of vehicle clearly seen. It is quite interesting that how the insurance company’s employee without scrutinizing the owners name blindly accepted the premium for the vehicle where previous owner’s name was mentioned. The agent and the employee of the O.P. failed to perform their respective duties which ought to have been properly attended. Omission of prescribed duties by Insurance Company burdened itself with liability. Therefore, the O.P. being the insurer under a policy where in a General Insurance Vehicle number is the vital material for all purposes, therefore there is no dispute with the identification of vehicle whose No. OR-02-AW-3341. Since the policy being a general/non-life the insurer had every opportunity to utilize the website to confirm the name of Owner/Complainant. The O.P. in their written version admitted that the Surveyor Mr. Sushanta Kumar Mohapatra and Manas Kumar Behera investigated and submitted their report before the O.P. that the registered owner of the vehicle in question is Mr. Ujwal Kumar Das (the Complainant) . Sec.157 (2) M.V. Act, 1988 specifically prescribed when the ownership charges within validity of a insurance policy, the new owner should inform the insurer within 14 days of transfer of ownership but in the present case in hand the agent entrusted with new registration certificate along with other relevant documents for renewal of insurance where the said section is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The present case is that the insurer’s agent and employee are responsible for the erroneous entry in the insurance policy.
The Surveyor did not asses the value of damage of the vehicle but the complainant submitted the value of damage of the vehicle due to fire to a tune of Rs. 4,45,950/- (copy of Xerox copy annexed). In the absence of assessment of value of damage by appropriate Surveyor, the damage assessment submitted by the complainant is accepted by this Commission.
In our considered view, the O.P. is liable to pay the estimate damage of Rs.4,45,950/- with other consequential reliefs from the date of fire accident with @ 6% interest per annum till its realization. This Commission is not inclined to pass any order respecting mental agony and litigation cost and denied by this Commission.
O R D E R.
Taking into all the facts and circumstances involved in this case, it is hereby directed by this Commission that the Opposite Party shall pay a total sum of Rs.4,45,950/- (Rupees four lakhs forty five thousand nine hundred and fifty) only with @ 6% interest per annum from the date of fire accident i.e.from dt. 09.09.2020 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding before this Commission. The consume complaint is allowed but no order as to cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of December 2022.
