- The complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift, Regd.No.OR-15P-2525 met an accident with Motor-cycle bearing No.OR-15N-3698 on dtd.6.3.2011 on N.H.6 near Nerolia Show-room. The driver of Maruti Swift and another occupant along with motor cyclist injured. Maruti Swift was also damaged.
The Maruti Swift was under M.I.PolicyNo.120268704 .Whenthe complainant claimed for compensation the O.P asked to submit the copy of D.L of Driver Mr. Satya Bhoi who met the accident vide letter no.163400 dated 30.8.2011 . The complainant in reply narrated the circumstances under which Mr. Satya Bhoi entered in F.I.R. The complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the material timed of accident and Satya Bhoi simply sitting by his side as occupant. Injured Harendra Nrayan Pandy, injured in his F.I.R dated 06.03.2011 alleged that Satya Bhoi was driving, which was not correct. This fact was intimated to the Opp. Party on 9.9.2011 as Satya Bhoi had no valid licence. A.S.I Sri Bipin Bihari Dash of Ainthapali investigated the matter, submitted charge sheet no.210 dated 11.5.2011 U/S.279/338 IPC against the complainant. Sri Satya Bhoi has never been arrested by police or released on bail.
After receipt of letter dated 9.9.2011 the O.P vide letter No.163400 dated 19.9.2011 rejected the claim of the complainant.
Being aggrieved this complaint has been filed the complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
- The Opp. Party after appearance in the case filed its version and stated that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. Maruti Swift was having insurance policy no.120268704 valid from 23.09.2010 to 22.9.2011. The alleged vehicle was driven by one Balersen Barik when the accident occurred on 6.3.2011at Gopalpali, Sambalpur. The Driver was having D.L.No.OR15-1519990027781 valid up to 6.7.2028. The vehicle was taken to M/S Odyssey Motor Pvt. Ltd for repair. The insured filled up the claim form assessed the loss in two method:
- On repairing basis which is Rs.3,54,386.25 Ps.
- On net salvage loss basis which is Rs.3,24,072/- ..
The Opp. Party received the report on 31.5.2011. The Surveyor correcting his survey report by inserting the name of Mr. Balersen Barik as per the claim form.
The Opp.Party obtained the certified copy of police papers and found that the informant Harendra Pandey lodged F.I.R against Driver of Maruti Swift OR-15- P-2525. In the F.I.R Satya Bhoi was the driver of Maruti Swift and he has also received fracture injury on his right thigh. Harendra Pandey and Satya Bhoi had undergone treatment at V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla . The O.P insisted for D.L of Satya Bhoi for further action on 30.8.2011. The O.P called for a comment on the ground of claim intimation as well as the claim form Balersen Barik was stated to have been driving the vehicle. The F.I.R says Satya Bhoi was driving whereas from letter dated 9.9.011 insured speaks that he was driving the v vehicle. It was a misrepresentation by the complainant. Basing on thedocuments in hand of O.P and survey report, the claim was repudiated vide letter dtd.24.11.2011.
There is no deficiency on the part of the Opp. Party. The complainant is not entitled to get the compensation as claimed i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- (Five lakhs) . The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complaint is a frivolous complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed. This is the version of the Opp.Party.
- After careful examination of the complaint, version of the Opp. Party and documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed and answered.
-
- Whether this is a consumer dispute or not?
As the complainant has entered into an insurance contract and paid the insurance premium, this dispute is a consumer dispute relating to policy No.120268704 for the vehicle OR-15-P-2525.
- Whether the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?
From the documents filed by the parties it reveals that the informant Harendra Narayan Pandey in his F.I.R dated 6.3.2011 categorically stated that the driver of Maruti Swift No.OR-15N-3696 received fracture injury. In the motor claim form the driver of the vehicle has been shown as Balersen Barik, Rengali. The Surveyor/Loss Assessor in his report dated 28.5.2011reported that the driver at the time of accident was Mr. Debraj Barik . Again the Surveyor in his letter dated 31.5.2011 informed the insurance company that the name of driver reported as Debraj Barik be corrected as Mr. Balersen Barik.
In the medical examination report two persons namely Harendra Narayan Pandey, Motor cycle rider and Satya Bhoi have been examined. The fracture injury made in accident corroborate with the contents of F.I.R and conclusion can be drawn that Satya Bhoi was the driver of Maruti Swift vehicle on the alleged date of accident.
From the letter dated 29.9.2011 of the complainant it reveals that Satya Bhoi, Driver had no valid Driving Licence and in order to patch the lacuna time to time the stand of the complainant changed. He said that he was driving the vehicle and later again said Balersen Barik was the driver. The responsibility shifted to a young man dealing with insurance matter in Maruti Showroom.
The complainant has not come to the court in clean hand, changed his stand time to time to prove a false fact/implant false fact to show that the vehicle has valid insurance and the driver was having valid licence.
In the aforesaid back-ground it is crystal clear that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance contract.
Accordingly, the issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.3:
Whether the Opp. Party is deficient in its service?
The Insurance Company from time to time obtained the claim form, collected the documents related with accident, made correspondence with the complainant and ultimately taken the decision on 22.11.2011 through its D.C.C.Members. The letter of repudiation has been received by the complainant vide letter dted.24.11.2011.
From above facts conclusion can be drawn that the O.P is not deficient in service and rightly repudiated the claim.
ISSUE NO.4.
What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
Taking into consideration all the issues the following order is made:
O R D E R.
The complaint is dismissed on contest. The parties are to bear their own cost.
Order pronounced in open court on this 27th day of April,2022.
Supply free copy to the parties.
