SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Parties claiming compensation.  

2.         The factual matrix of this case is that the complainant was the registered owner of a Tata Signa 3718 TCR BSIV 10X2 vehicle bearing registration No.OD-01Z-0655. The aforesaid vehicle was insured with the Ops which was valid from 6.9.2018 to 5.9.2019. The vehicle of the complainant met with a road accident near Kanjipani Ghat near village Barhadebata on 8.5.2019 while proceeding to Angul Zindal Plant. An FIR was lodged before Kanjipani Police Station vide P.S. Case No.11 dated 11.5.2019. The complainant reported the matter to Ops-Insurance Company and filed claim application. The Ops-Company deputed one Surveyor to assess the loss of damaged vehicle. As per the direction of the Ops-Company, the complainant handed over the vehicle in question before Samal Motors, Khannagar, Kuruda, Balasore for repairing and the concerned workshop prepared a repair estimate for a sum of Rs.10,58,338/- in presence of Surveyor and a copy of which was supplied to the complainant. But the Ops slept over the matter for a pretty long period and lastly on 4.9.2019 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the Ops are liable for unfair trade practice so also deficiency in service.

            The cause of action for filing of this case arose on 4.9.2019, when the complainant received the letter of repudiation of the claim. Hence, finding no other way out, the complainant was constrained to file this case. Hence, this case.  

            To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of R.C. Book.
2. Photocopy of Permit.
3. Photocopy of Insurance policy.
4. Photocopy of acknowledgement of OIC, Kanjipani PS. 
5.  Photocopy of letter issued by Ops.
6. Photocopy of Repair estimate.
7. Photocopy of Repudiation letter dated 4.9.2019.
8. Photocopy of Affidavit.
9. Photocopy of letter of the complainant dated 29.7.2019.

3.         In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint written version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have challenged that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the case is not maintainable. They have stated, inter alia, that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured under them covering the period from 6.9.2018 to 5.9.2019. They have admitted the fact of accident occurred in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. It is specifically stated that on receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant, they have issued claim Form to him to be submitted duly filled in for taking further action and also engaged one Surveyor for assessment of loss. Thereafter, the complainant was requested to submit the relevant documents in support of his claim. In support of the claim, the complainant submitted copy of SDE dated 11.5.2019 of Kanjipani PS, Keonjhar wherein it is mentioned that at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle in question was driven by one Awadesh Yadav, who was possessing a driving license bearing No.BR4520888014572. On verification, it is found that DL holder Awadesh Yadav was authorized to drive LMV/NT/MCWG only. It is further stated that at the time of submission of claim Form, the complainant submitted that one Om Prakash Yadav was the actual driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, but from the police papers it is found that on the date of accident Awadesh Yadav was driving the vehicle. They have discharged their duty perfectly and efficiently at every point of time.          Hence, after taking into consideration all the aspects, they constrained to repudiate the claim of the complainant and in the above facts and circumstances they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, as alleged by the complainant.

            In support of their claim, the Ops have relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of Certificate of insurance & policy schedule.
2. Photocopy of Acknowledgement issued by OIC, Kanjipani PS.
3. Photocopy of Driving Licence of Awadesh Yadav.
4. Photocopy of Letter of repudiation of claim.    

4.         In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

(ii)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)        To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to? 

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

5.         Before delve into the merits of the case, it is required to be decided how far the complainant is able to prove his case with regard to the cause of action and maintainability of the case and especially whether he is a consumer or not.

6.         On perusal of Annexure-1, 2 & 3 as well as Annexure-A, it is reflected that the goods carrier vehicle of the complainant bearing Registration No. OD-01Z-0655 was insured for Rs.3,150,000/- under the Ops vide Policy No.UGC0526702000100 which was valid from 6.9.2018 to 5.9.2019. It is the claim of the complainant that his vehicle met with a road accident near village Barhadebata on the way at Kanjipani Ghat on 8.5.2019 while proceeding to Angul Zindal Plant for which he lodged a written FIR before Kanjipani police station. The complainant had also intimated the Ops regarding the alleged accident in respect of his vehicle and subsequently submitted claim Form before the Ops. But the Ops, without considering the genuine claim, arbitrarily & illegally repudiated the claim.

7.         Learnerd Counsel for the contesting Ops submitted that on receipt of claim intimation from the complainant regarding the claim in respect of his vehicle, they have issued the claim form with a request to file the same with all required document and taken early steps by deputing one Surveyor for assessment of the actual loss in respect of the damaged vehicle. That apart, while submission of the claim Form by the complainant, he had submitted one DL of the driver namely Awadesh Yadav. On verification, it came to light that said Awadesh Yadav was authorized to drive LMV/NT/MCWG only whereas the insured vehicle of the complainant was a commercial goods carrying vehicle (Annexure-C). Therefore, the Ops have constrained to repudiated the claim of the complainant.

8.         The main crux for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is for Driving licence. In this context, the complainant claimed that the driving licence of the driver namely Om Prakash Yadav was valid and effective at the time of accident and he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. But due to mental imbalance of the loss occurred at night, the complainant wrongly produced another DL of Awadesh Yadav instead of DL of Om Prakash Yadav due to same title of his both driver. Knowing about such mistake, the complainant immediately made an application with affidavit before the OP so also IIC, Kanjipani PS for rectification. On the other hand, Ops claimed that said driver Awadesh Yadav has no valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. On perusal of Annexure-C, the DL of Awadesh Yadav, it is found that he was authorized to drive LMV/NT/MCWG vehicles throughout India. He was not authorized to drive the commercial goods carrying vehicle. The alleged vehicle of the complainant was a Tipper. In the Annexure-B as well as Annexure-4, the acknowledgement issued by the OIC, Kanjipani PS on 11.5.2019, it is found that police had verified the MV documents along with the DL of driver Awadesh Yadav vide DL No.BR4520888014572. On the other hand, the complainant has filed all the relevant documents except the DL of either Awadesh Yadav or Om Prakash Yadav, which are the vital documents to be taken into consideration in this case. Rather, the complainant has vividly claimed that due to mental imbalance of the loss occurred, he has wrongly produced another DL of Awadesh Yadav instead of Om Prakash Yadav and after knowing such type of mistake he made an application with affidavit before the Ops and IIC, Kanjipani PS for rectification of the same. In this connection, no document is filed to prove that he has made any application with affidavit before the IIC, Kanjipani PS and the follow up action taken by the police. Either party have not filed the police papers relating to Kanjipani PS Case No.11 dated 11.5.2019 which could have thrown more light relating to the veracity of the case. On the other hand, the acknowledgement issued by the concerned Police Station (Annexure-4 & Annexure-B) clearly speaks that one Awadesh Yadav was driving the vehicle of the complainant which was met with a road accident occurred near village Barhadebata on the way at Kanjipani Ghat on 8.5.2019 while proceeding to Angul Zindal Plant. Moreover, the complainant has not filed a single document before this Commission to substantiate his case to the effect that on the alleged date of accident, the vehicle of the complainant was driving by Om Prakash Yadav, not Awadesh Yadav. The concerned police has verified the MV documents along with DL of the driver at the spot of accident while investigating into the case and at that time the complainant was not present there. The complainant has not whispered a single word either in his complaint or at the time of hearing that he himself produced the DL of the concerned Driver before the police and he was very much present at the spot while enquiry was made by the police or he was accompanied with the driver in the said vehicle to the destination. Therefore, the plea as taken by the complainant that due to mental imbalance, he has wrongly produced the DL of Awadesh Yadav instead of Om Prakash Yadav is not at all believable and held to be an afterthought which has been implanted for the purpose of this case. Further, it is seen that the Ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide their letter dated 4.9.2019. Till date, the complainant has not taken any initiative to comply the requirements of the Ops for claiming insurance and lastly the Ops have showed their inability to entertain the claim on the ground of misrepresentation of facts with regard to driver details.

9.         From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, it is held that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present case and thus, the case is not maintainable. Consequently, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

            The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops without cost.

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission, this the 10^th day of September, 2024 under my signature and the seal of this Commission.