Orissa

Rayagada

CC/58/2019

Sujata Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Nrushingh Nath Panda

07 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     58      / 2019.                             Date.       7   . 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Smt. Sujata Nayak, W/O:  Lokanath Nayak, Indira Nagar, Rayagada, Po/ Dist:Rayagada. 765 001.                                             …Complainant.

Vrs.

1. The  General  Manager, The oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental house, Asaf Ali Road,  New Delhi.
2. The Branch  Manager,   The oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Jeypore, Dist: Koraput                                               
3. The General Manager, HDFC Ltd. Mumbai
4. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank  Ltd., Bhubaneswar..…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri N.N.Panda, Advocate, Rayagada.

.For the O.Ps  1 & 2 :- Sri J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate ,Rayagada.

For the  O.P.  No.3 & 4:-  Sri M.K.PANDA, R.R.Khatoi and associates.

JUDGEMENT.

The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant  alleging deficiency in service  against the afore said O.P No.1 & 2 for non  payment of insurance  amount  in respect of  complete damaged  vehicle  Honda City 4 wheeler  Car  bearing  Regd. No. OD-02E-7979  which was  insured with the  O.P. No.1 & 2.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No 1 & .2 (Insurance company) put in their appearance through their learned counsel  and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  No.  1 & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.1 & 2. Hence the O.Ps  No.  1  & 2 prays the District commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No 3 & 4 (HDFC  bank) put in their appearance through their learned counsel  and filed written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  No.  3 & 4  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No.3 & 4. Hence the O.Ps  No.  3  & 4 prays the District commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard from the learned counsels for the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and O.P. No.  3 & 4  and from  the learned counsel  for the complainant.  Perused the record, documents, written version   filed by the parties..

The  learned counsel  for the O.Ps   advanced arguments  vehemently touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

FINDINGS.

On careful perusal of  all the  papers we  observed  that  there is no  dispute that the  complainant  purchased a  Honda  City 4 Wheeler Car bearing Regd. No. OD-02E-7979   by  borrowing  finance from the O.P. No.3 & 4(HDFC bank)  and got it insured with the O.P. No.1   & 2 which  was  set fire  on Dt. 2.11.2018 in the evening  near  about  6.45 P.M. which was parking just near complainants house .  The policy   No.   345490/31/2019/432 was effective from 28.7.2018  to  27.7.2019.(Copies of the  polcy  is available in the file which is marked as Annexure –I).

On  perusal of the written version  filed  by the  O.P. No.1  & 2(Insurance company)  it is revealed that  the  O.P. No.1  & 2 contended that  due to  non submission of the   documents the  claim  of the complainant is not yet settled.

                On  query it is revealed  that   the required documents will neither  increase  nor decrease  the loss amount arrived  by the   Suveyer in the final surveyer  report.  The  other documents  required by  the O.P.No.1 & 2    had  given  during pendency of this case.   So we feel that the documents  required  by the O.P. No.1   & 2  is more formal in  nature than  compulsory or  binding  in  nature . So  at  present there is  no  impediment  on the part of the O.P.No.1 & 2  to pay the insurance amount  as arrived by the Surveyor in his final  Survey report.

                For better appreciation this District Commission  relied citations which are mentioned  here  under.

It is held as reported in SCC (1979) 4   page- 178  where in  the hon’ble  apex court observed that   “Resort to the plea of limitation by public authority to defeat just  claim of citizen depreciated- Though  permissible under law, such technical pleas should only be taken when claim is not well founded”.

Further the learned counsel for the  complainant  filed citation  reported in   CPR- 2004(2) page No. 80  where  the Hon’ble   State Commission  allowed  similar  type of   case in  absence  documents as required by the O.P. No.1  & 2.

The  O.Ps 1 & 2  in their written version  submitted   that the  Surveyor  has  assessed  the loss  on  total  loss basis to the tune of Rs. 3,59,000.00 in his   surveyor report  which was not agreed by the  insurance company  and the  Insurance company  has  considered to pay Rs.3,00,000.00  to the complainant .  The O.Ps  No.  1 & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

The learned counsel  for the  complainant  during  course of hearing showed  the  F.I.R.  copy  dtd. 2.11.2018 (Marked as Annexure -2).  Re-estimate  copy after  fired  of the  above  Car   which was  issued by   Aditya Car Automotives Pvt. Ltd.,Bhubaneswar(marked as Annexure-3).  Letter No. 2885 Dt.3.11.2019 issued by the Assistant Fire Officer, Rayagada   which is marked  as Annexure-4).

The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer? In a  Catena of Judgements the Hon’ble  National Commission has held and reported  in  C.P.R. 2009(1)  page No. 44  the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed  when a company or any one obtains  an Insurance it is not part of commercial activity, but it  is obtaining in order to cover the risk to the commercial activity, hence, even companies  obtaining a insurance cover  will fall within the defination of ‘Consumer’.

Further Para- 21 as per regulation 9(3) of the IRDA Protection of policy holders interest regulation 2002   the Insurance company was obliged to finalise the view  based on the report of the surveyor within a period of 30 days. Section 9(5) states that if the  insurer on the receipt of the survey report  finds that it is in complete in any respect, he shall require the surveyor under  intimation to the insured  to furnish an additional report on certain specific issue as may  be  required by the   insurer such a request may  be made within 15 days of receipt of the original survey report. Provided that the facility of calling for an additional report by the  insurer shall not be resorted more than once in the case of claim.  The other facts which is necessary is also dealt within Sub- section (4) and (5).

Again   we perused the case law  in the instant case. It is held and reported in  CPC- 1991, page -540 the  Hon’ble  Hariyana State  Commission held that when ever there is any delay or dilatoriness in finalizing  the insurance claim, the same would be tentamount to a  deficiency  in service and thus comes squarely within the  purview of District Commission.  Once it is held that default or negligence in the  settlement of an insurance claim is a deficiency  in service then an arbitrary  or mischievous  rejection  of an insurance claim  would patently  be a default  within its larger  meaning. On principle , it would   seem  some what manifest that the mere repudiation of the insurance claim cannot itself operate  as a  jurisdiction bar for redressel    commissions  under the Act.  This is further  made it clear  it is held and reported  in CPR-1991(2), page No.18  the Hon’ble National Commission  clearly defines  the mere unilateral  rejection of an insured parties  claimed by the insurer does not  per  se  operate as jurisdictional bar to seek redressal before  the forums under the Act. It is on the strength of the  above decision  the instant case is admitted by this  Disrict Commission.

Further  It is held  and reported  in C.P.R-2006(2) page No. 27  the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission , Ranchi  where in observed  “ When as per norms of insurance  law, claim is to be settled within  three months  from date of receipt of information regarding  loss or damage, then steps nor being   taken  by insurance company for prompt  settlement of loss arising out  from an accident amounted to deficiency in service on its part”.

Again  it is held and reported in  C.P.R.-2006(2) page No.  146  the Hon’ble State C.D,R,Commission,Raipur  where  in  observed  “In case  of total loss  of insured vehicle, compensation has to be paid according to terms and conditions of the policy otherwise accordingly to the sum   insured”.

Further It is held and reported  in CPR 2008(3) page No.51 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission  observed  “Surveyor report is an important document and can not be washed  aside without any compelling  evidence to the contrary”.

During  the  course  of hearing  the learned counsel  for the  O.P. Sri  J.K.Mohapatra  has filed  one  final surveyor report  where  in   the   Insurance  company  has  agreed to pay   Rs.3,00,000.00  i.e. 75% of the  I.D.V. value to the complainant  which  was vehemently  objected  by the learned counsel   for the complainant  and submitted that  the complainant is entitled  Rs.3,59,000.00   on total loss basis.

 

On  going  through  the   surveyor report  of O.P. No.1 & 2 (Insurance Company)  we are of the view that the  complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,59,000.00 who opted  to receive  compensation   on total  loss basis  as calculated  by the surveyor   of the  insurance  company. 

In the present case the complainant has not sought any relief from the O.P. No.3 & 4(Bank) .  So this District Commission  need not  going  to the merit  of  the  case against the O.P. No. 3 & 4 (Bank).

In the above facts, circumstances  & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition,   documents, and referring on above Citations there  exists a strong “prima-facie” case in favor of the complainant.

On the strength of the aforesaid rulings of the Apex court  this   District Commission  allow this case  in  part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.   

                                                                                         ORDER.

In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed  in  part  on  contest against  theO.P No. 1  & 2 (Insurance company) and  dismissed  against   the O.P. No.3 & 4  (HDFC  bank).

The O.P No. 1 & 2 (Insurance  company)   are   ordered  to pay Rs.3,59,000.00(Rupees three lakhs fifty nine thousand)only      to the complainant as per the Survey report  along with interest @ 9%  per annum  from the date of filing i.e.  Dt.10.07.2019  till realisation.  Parties are left to bear their  own cost.

The O.P No. 1 & 2 (Insurance  company)   are   ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  45 days from the  date of  receipt  of the  order.     The O.P No. 1 & 2 (Insurance  company)    are further ordered  to  hand over the  damaged  Car  to the complainant  which was  parking  at Aditya Car Automotives Pvt.  Ltd., Bhubaneswar  without  charging  any  parking  price.

The O.P. No.3  &  4 (Bank)  are  at  liberty  to recover the finance amount  from the complainant  if any, he can realize the same  as per law  according  to the R.B.I guide  lines.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        7  ^th.   Day of    April,   2021.

 

.                                                                               Member.                                              President