DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………..
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 18th day of December 2017.
C.C.No.24 of 2017.
Nitu Agrawal, aged about 40 years wife of Sanjeev Agrawal,
At-Tikrapada (Railway Station Road) Bolangir, P.O/P.S &
District- Bolangir.
.. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The Divisional Officer, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd,
Divisional Office, Bolangir, At-1st Floor, Basudev Bhawan,
In front of Govt.Girl’s High School, Bolangir.
P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
2.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Bolangir Branch,
At-Tikrapada, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant-Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - Sri J.K.Sai.
Adv. for the O.P.No.2 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 08.06.2017
Date of order - 18.12.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. The case of the complainant that, she had purchased a Creta Diesel car bearing Regd. No.OD03E-3681, for a consideration of Rs 10,59,000/- with the financial assistance of the O.P.No.2. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P.No.1. During validity of the insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on dt. 18.06.2016. To this the complainant reported the said accident before the IIC Barpali P.S & submitted her insurance claim before the O.P.No.1 on dt.19.06.2016 After deputed a surveyor and completing all formalities the O.P.No.1 has settled her claim on total loss basis on dt.23.02.2017. The complainant alleges that, due to the delay in settlement of her claim and negligent act of the O.Ps she has sustained loss by paying parking charges to the Sonu Motors and also sustained loss by paying the bank interest and also sustained business loss. Hence the complainant has preferred this case claiming total financial loss which are part of the insurance claim.
2. Although notice has been served on O.P.No.2, he did not choose to appear and file his version and was set exparte vide order dt.6.10.2017. After closure of hearing of the case, when it was fixed for order the O.P.No.2 files his version without his signature and without signature in the verification. The O.P.No.2 has also not signed in the Vakalatnama and also not signed in the petition filed by him for setting aside the exparte order. Hence the said petition is rejected and the version filed by the O.P.2 without verification cannot be accepted. This conduct of the O.P.2 before a judicial forum with a careless manner cannot be said to be fair and defeat the very purpose of the aims and objects of the C.P.Act. Hence the O.P.2 is liable under the proviso of Sec.14(d) of the C.P.Act.
3. The O.P.1 contested the case by filing his written version .According to the O.P.No.1 the claim of the complainant has been settled after observing all official formalities and after approval of the competent authority the said claim has been settled on total loss basis on dt.23.2.2017. After settlement of the claim there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this case and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.2.
4. Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. The learned advocate for the O.P.No.1 submitted that, since the claim of the complainant has been settled on total loss basis, there is no cause of action for the present case and even if there was any delay in settlement of the claim, that is due to official procedure and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
5. It is an admitted fact that, the claim of the complainant has already been settled on total loss basis and the complainant has already been received claim amount. Law is well settled that, mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefit arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered (Reference may be made to United India Insurance -versus- Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills (1999) 6 SCC-400).Therefore even if the complainant has received the claim amount with full and final settlement, he can file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service.
6. It is an admitted fact that, the O.P.1 has settled the claim after 8 months from the date of filing of the claim application in prescribed form. The stand taken by the O.P.1 is that, the delay is due to official procedure. It is seen from the material available on record that, after submission of the report of the final surveyor again the O.P.1 deputed Er.Balkrushna Patra for further survey and salvage valuation. It is also seen that, without any valid reason the claim application has been put up several time before different authorities. Therefore the reason for delay can not be said to be genuine and it seems to be a bargain for the needs of the complainant.
7. It is seen from the surveyor report that, the surveyor has inspected the damaged vehicle lying in the workshop of Sonu Motors Bolangir. It is also seen from the documents filed by the complainant that, the vehicle was lying in the aforesaid workshop for about 8 months and the complainant had paid the parking fee at the rate of Rs 150/- per day along with estimation charges and had paid a total amount of Rs 67,756/- to Sonu Motors. This fact has not been disputed by the O.P.1 nor the Surveyor has taken into consideration relating to the parking fees.
8. Further the complainant has also claimed the towing charges amount to Rs 17,000/- and filed the receipt of the same. On perusal of the receipt it is believed that, the complainant had paid the towing charges and the same has not been considered by the O.P.No.1 while settling the claim of the complainant. Therefore in total the complainant had sustained a financial loss amounting to Rs 84,756/- due to the negligent act of the O.P.1, which arises out of the claim of the damaged vehicle.
9. Under the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is concluded that, settlement of the claim of the complainant beyond the prescribed time without any valid reasons, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.P.1 is directed to pay Rs 84.756/-( Rupees Eighty four thousand seven hundred fifty six) only, to the complainant towards compensation along with Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% P.A. till payment.
Further the O.P.2 is directed to pay a penalty of Rs 50,000/- for his negligent act under the proviso of Sec. 14(d) of the C.P.Act to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 18th day of December 2017.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
