BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-56/2014
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Jay Prakash Jain,
S/O- Late Ram Pratap Jain,
R/O-Bangomunda,Dist- Bolangir. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd,
Nayapara,P.S-Town,Dist-Sambalpur.
- The Chairman cum Managing Director,
3 Middle Stone Street,
Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani,
Kolkata, West Bengal-700071.………O.Ps
For the Complainant:-Sri B. B Pattanaik, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1& 2 :- Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate & Associates.
DATE OF HEARING : 07.04.2021, DATE OF ORDER :13.04.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a new Hyundai EON Magna Plus bearing Engine No-G3HACM046444 and chassis no-A351ALCM056658 from Akashdeep Motors Pvt. Ltd. Sambalpur on dtd. 19.03.2012. The said vehicle was insured with the O.Ps vide policy No- 163400/31/11/6100004330 by Sambalpur branch. The Car was met with an accident on dtd. 9.03.2012 at Titilagarh on the way to house of the Complainant. This matter was reported to the Police and a case was registered vide No-62/19.03.2012. The matter was also reported to the O.Ps and on their advice the vehicle was shifted to the workshop of the Akashdeep Motors. The Surveyor of the O.Ps inspected the damaged vehicle and advised to accept the Salvage Value at Rs.1,85,000/- without surrendering the R.C Book. The Complainant agreed to the offer and signed the proposal on dtd.14.08.2012 to avoid interest on investment but no payment was made and the vehicle is lying in the said workshop since March 2012. On dtd. 03.03.2014 the complainant sent a letter to the Insurance Company to settle the claim but in reply the O.Ps asked to submit the sale invoice issued by the dealer to make investigation in to the matter. The O.Ps was earlier agreed to settle the claim on net salvage value but without going through the police report and verification of the driving license rejected the claim mentioning that at the time of the accident the driver was not possessing valid driving license which violates the condition of the policy.
As per the O.P while delivering the possession of the said car the dealer has manipulated the Insurance Cover note as the Complainant was first issued a cover note bearing no- 12555 on dtd. 19.03.2012 at about 1.40 pm. But it is ascertained from the record that another cover note bearing no-12554 was issued on the same date to one B.C.Naik at 4.10 pm which is doubtful as cover note no which comes earlier will be issued first. In the claim form the Complainant has submitted two Retail Invoice bearing different numbers i.e 1438 and 3538 without any endorsement of the nature of transaction whether in cash or Bank draft. Again the Complainant has mentioned while going for delivery of the car to the complainant the accident occurred so the complainant has no insurable interest on the car because it was with the dealer Akashdeep motors. Another alleged discrepancies noticed that the temporary registration of the vehicle was done on dtd.19.03.2012 at RTO office Sambalpur bearing no-OR-15-T-1182. But the O.Ps availed the copy of registration through RTI but found that the entry was done by some other person except to the entrusted person and the entry of sl.no-1182 was not done by the same person as the handwriting was different. The FIR was lodged on dtd. 20.03.2012 at 10 am but the accident was occurred on 19.03.2012 at about 6.00 pm which seems to be after thought. In FIR there is entry as driver and another person were injured but in police paper shows only person got injured. Again from the driving license available with the police reveals that the driver did possess no valid DL at the time of the Accident but the Complainant is not disclosing the name of the driver. The O.Ps denies the fact that the Surveyor has assessed the salvage value at Rs. 1,85,000/- without surrendering the RC book and O.Ps has assured to settle the claim at Rs.1,85,000/-. The Complainant has not submitted the required documents asked by the O.Ps. The O.Ps has rightly repudiated the claim due to violation of policy condition and they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the Complainant.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new HYUNDAI EON Car and got it insured with the O.Ps on payment of Premium as consideration amount. The Complainant has the insurable interest in the car as he has availed a cover note issued against the premium paid, from the dealer Akashdeep Motors. The Dealer issued cover notes bearing different number and time is not within the control of the Complainant but it the dealer who has issued the same and is acting on behalf of the O.Ps. Again considering the issue of the temporary registration number, though the Sl. No-1182 is written in different handwriting other than the person in charge of the register, ultimately the same has been signed by the concerned authority which is considered to be genuine. The O.Ps has made a vague statement that the invoice no-1438 was provided the Complainant in the claim form but no documents supporting the statement is filed with the petition. Other discrepancies are with the FIR report as well as in the Claim form regarding the inured persons in the accident but the main issue are the settlement of claim of the accidented car. The driver of the car Brundaban Bhoi (as per the FIR) was not possessing valid DL at the time of accident hence the claim was repudiated. In the case of Amlendu Sahu Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536 case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided that “ it has been held that in a case of violation of condition of the policy as to the nature of use of the vehicle, the claim ought to be settled on a non-standard basis.” From a perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it is clear that one of the cases where 75% claim of the admissible claim was settled was where condition of policy including limitation as to use was breached. Again the O.Ps has arbitrarily assessed the loss of the damage vehicle at Rs.1,85,000/- even the vehicle was not handed over to the complainant by the dealer as on the particular date the authorised person of the dealer was on the way to hand over the newly purchased Car from the Sambalpur showroom of Akashdeep Motors and the age of the vehicle was less than one day. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Company Limited vrs. Pardeep Kumar () is applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it has been laid down that Surveyors report is not the last and final word. It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be departed from; it is not conclusive. So from the above the O.Ps has committed deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant by repudiating the claim arbitrarily. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complainant petition is allowed. The O.P-1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,85,000/- to the Complainant which was agrees between the parties along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from dtd. 21.10.2014 till the date of actual payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within the above mentioned period.
Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 13rd day of April 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT
