1. The complaint is with allegation of deficiency in service of the Opp. Party Insurance Company. The complainant is the owner of Bolero Camper SC XL Pick-up van bearing No.OR15-5-1748 and the vehicle is insured with the Opp.Party vide Policy No.55090031120100001074 valid from 6.2.2013 to 5.2.2014. The vehicle is having fitness certificate for the period 29.2.2012 to 27.2.2014.

          The Driver of the vehicle Sri. Bablu Seth on 17.9.2013 met an accident, the vehicle dashed to a Mahua Tree, severely damaged having without any injury to the Driver on the bullock. Driver was having a valid license D.L.No.OR-15-1519990068866, authorized to drive LMV, LMV-GV and Transport Vehicle. The driver lodged S.D.E.No.276 dtd.17.9.2013 at Kansar Police Station. The S.I. of Police Station Sri B.Pati visited the spot, inspected the damaged vehicle and observed that the case is fit for insurance claim.

          The complainant repaired the vehicle in OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd. Authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra, spent Rs.1,96,722/-. The amount was claimed from the Opp. Party by submitting relevant papers for O.D. Claim though the OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd Mr. Raju Tripathy, Surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the damaged vehicle after receiving the pleader notice dated 11.7.2014 and deputed by the Opp. Party vide letter dtd.28.7.2014 . The Opp. Party has not paid the insurance claim till date to the complainant.

2.       The Opp. Party Insurance Company appeared on 23.12.2014 filed written statement on 9.2.2016, challenged the maintainability of the complaint. The policy is a commercial vehicle package policy. The Opp. Party expressed the no knowledge of accident, station diary entry. Damage of the vehicle, expenditure of Rs.1, 96,722/-. The Opp. Party denied the facts of reimbursement of the expenses and submission of claim form through OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd. Inspection of Mr. Ravi Tripathy, Surveyor was also denied.

          As unless the insurance company deputes a Surveyor in accordance to the Insurance Act, 1938, no report of a Surveyor shall be deemed to be a survey report for the purpose. The Complainant never visited the office of the Opp. Party and was directed to file a complaint. As the complainant not made any claim before the Opp. Party it is not possible to settle the claim at belated stage after lapse of more than one year. The complainant haws made a frivolous complaint for which he is liable to be punished and case is liable to be rejected.

3).     After perusal of the complaint, written statement of the Opp. Party and documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed for just decision of the case.

                                      ISSUES:-

1. Whether this complaint is not a consumer dispute in view of the commercial vehicle package policy?
2. Whether the alleged vehicle was having proper insurance licence and valid during licence of the driver on the day of accident?
3. Whether the complainant duly informed the Opp. Party and claimed for insurance amount?
4. Is there any deficiency on the part of the Opp. Party settling the claim of the complainant?
5. Whether relief the complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1 :

          The alleged vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle for public carrier obtained on loan basis from Sundram Finance Ltd by the complainant. For the policy the complainant has paid Rs.18, 720/- towards insurance premium. The cost of the vehicle is Rs.4, 41,500/- and the vehicle is used in transportation of goods purpose within the knowledge of the Opp. Party. The O.P simply made a counter in the written statement without giving other detail vehicles of the complainant. The complainant is earning his livelihood employing a driver. Accordingly this dispute is a consumer dispute.

ISSUE NO.2:

          Whether the alleged vehicle was having proper insurance licence and valid driving licence of the driver on the day of accident?

                    The policy was valid for the period 6.2.2013 to 5.2.2014 having Policy No.55090031120100001074. The fitness certificate was valid from 29.2.2012 to 27.2.2014. The Driver Sri Bablu Seth having D.L. No.OR-15-1519990068866 authorized to drive LMV,LMV-GV and Transport vehicle as on 17.9.2013 at 5.30 P.M. The D.L.is valid till 14.2.2029. The vehicle met an accident and the matter has been reported in Kansar Police Out-Post vide S.D.E.No.276 dated 17.9.2013. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that there is no impediments to reject the insurance policy.

                  Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:-

          Whether the complainant duly in formed the Opp. Party and claimed for insurance amount?

                    From the pleading of the complainant it is clear that the S.I of Police investigated the spot, investigated to the matter but there is no any narration informing the Opp. Party or supporting documents. After issuance of Pleader Notice dated 11.7.2014 the Opp. Party gave a reply vide letter No.550990/OD CL/2014/752 dtd.28.7.2014 wherein mentioned that the Opp. party received telephonic intimation of the accident on 20.7.2014 and immediately on the same day an independent surveyor Mr. R.N. Tripathy was deputed to submit a written letter of intimation and to collect claim form. The Opp. Party not submitted any report of Surveyor in this case. Till the filing of written statement in this case i.e. 9.2.2016 the Opp. Party has not taken any steps to avoid the claim and simply gave reply that the facts are not known to the Opp. Party.

                   The Opp. Party at Para-6 its written statement (Sub-para-2) stated that”……;. Admittedly, Ravi Narayan Tripathy is a licensed surveyor and Loss Assessor but he was never deputed by the Insurance Company to conduct any survey or assessment of loss at any point of time for the damages of the vehicle No. OR 15S-1748 of the complainant. This very statement is contrary to letter No.550900/OD CL/2014/752 dtd.28.7.2014 . To avoid liability intentionally the Opp. Party has not submitted the report of Mr. Ravi Narayan Tripathy.

                   Accordingly inference can be drawn that the Opp. Party had sufficient knowledge about the accident and repairing of vehicle in OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd.

ISSUE NO.4:- Is there any deficiency on the part of the Opp. Party settling the claim of the complainant?

                   The complainant has filed documents relating to expenditure made in OSL Auto Car Pvt. Ltd amounting to Rs.1, 96,722/-. In the written statement also the Opp. Party remained silent and simply said that it deserves no reply. The Opp. Party received the pleader notice, replied to the advocate for complainant but remained silent on survey  and assessment report, it amounts to deficiency in service of the Opp. Party Right to Information is the basic right of a consumer and the Opp. Party cannot escape from it by simply saying “deserves no reply”.

                   Accordingly, this issue is answered against the O.P.

ISSUE NO.5:- What relief the complainant is entitled to get?

                   From the documents filed by the complainant it reveals that due to accident he spent Rs.1, 96,722/- in repairing of the vehicle and as damage is caused , insurance was valid , the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. It is ordered:

                                                O R D E R

                   The Opp. Party is liable to pay Rs.1,96,722/- towards price of the damaged vehicle and directed to pay the amount with interest @ 4% P.A. from the day of accident i.e. 17.9.2013 till the day of this order, within one month , failing which the amount Rs.1,96,722/- will carry 6% till realization. Further the O.P is to bear Rs.5, 000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

                   Order pronounced in open court on this 26^th day of April, 2022.

                   Supply free copy of the judgment to the parties.