Date of filing:- 09/06/2015.
Date of Order:-11/05/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2015.
Lilima Sahu, W/o- Late Rajendra Sahu, aged about-26(twenty six) years, Occupation- Dependant R/o-Mebajum Tikira, Khemesara, P.s/Tahasil- Barpali, Dist-Bargarh At present resident of Bhatli, Po/Ps. Bhatli, Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., At- ICICI Lombard House 414, Veer Savarkar Marg near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025 ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M. Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/05/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
The case pertains to deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, in nut-shell the case of the Complainant is that he has purchased one Motor Bike by the Model Hero Splendor vide Regd No- OD-17-C-4740 and Engine No-HA12EME9FO4595, Chesis No-MBLHA12ACE9FO5619 and got it insured with the Opposite Party ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vide Policy No-300523394650/10216/000 by paying the required amount of premium, which is having his Branches all over India including Bargarh too.
And that during the subsistence of the Policy period the said Bike of the husband namely Rajendra Sahu of the Complainant met with an accident while he was coming from Luhurachati village to his house causing his death and also caused damage to the Bike at Manpur Bhati Chowk being dashed by an un-known vehicle.
And that as the Complainant being the class one heirs of her deceased husband is entitled to the compensation of the damaged vehicle from the Opposite Party and as such she approached the dealer of the said vehicle to get it repair, against that the said dealer namely the Akash Motors, Bargarh issued her with an estimation of such repair and after getting it repaired issued her with a bill amounting to Rs.49,664/-(Rupees forty nine thousand six hundred sixty four)only besides that also has claimed for an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only as compensation towards her claim for the mental, physical and financial harassment claiming the date of the Accident on Dt.09.03.2015 and on Dt.20.06.2015 when the said Akash Motors issued her with the estimation and subsequently thereafter when he claimed for the same before the Opposite Party as the cause of action of the case and has filed the same before the Forum, and in support of her case has relied upon some following documents,
Policy of the Bike .
Papers of the Vehicle.
The assessment of the repair made by the Akash Motors.
Xerox copy of the F.I.R.
Copy of the Pleader Notice to the Opposite Party Dtd 10.09.2015.
Perused the Complaint, the supporting documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party, and in response to the same it appeared before the Forum through his Advocate and filed his version.
The sole averments made by the Opposite Party is completely an evasive one to the case of the Complainant, wherein it has made averments in their version that the Complainant has not mentioned the name of the branch and the policy particular in the absence of which it is difficult to trace out as to whether the vehicle is insured or not and is not a consumer and further has contended that the insurance policy is strictly guided by the M.V.Act and the insured is supposed to follow all the requirement of the same which is not being in consonance with the same hence is not maintainable in the eye of Law. In furtherance to their pleas of denial has contended that the story of the accident and the death of the husband of the Complainant is also not known to the Opposite Party moreover the allegation with regard to the sufferings of the Complainant due to their deficient action is also not a fact, further more the Opposite Party has denied of being deficient in settling the claim of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant has neither mentioned the date of the accident nor has mentioned as to when has claimed before their office, in such circumstances it is denied from their end to have any liability as had they been provided with the claim form with the claim then they would have investigated in to the matter and could have appointed surveyor to assess over the loss caused to the vehicle in case it was a fact one, so in view of such circumstances strictly denied to have any liability on their part and has claimed the case as not maintainable hence has prayed for dismissal of the same.
Having gone through the Complainant, the documents filed by her in support of the case and the version of the Opposite Party and after hearing the respective counsels of the Parties some vital question have cropped up before the Forum to properly adjudicate the case as follows,
Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party ?
Whether there are deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Whether the Case is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary Party ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the claim amount as has been sought for by her ?
Firstly while considering the question as to whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Party, in this regard we examined the materials available in the record with utmost care and in the process it came to our notice that the Complainant has filed the Policy Bond issued by the Opposite Party to her deceased husband wherein her name has been mentioned as nominee of her husband insured and in as much as it is also clearly established from the policy Bond it’self that on payment of the required amount of the premium such a bond has been issued by the Opposite Party wherein it is also clearly mentioned that the Policy has been commenced directly in between the insured and the Opposite Party through internet, so in view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is a bonafide consumer of the Opposite Party company, hence it is answered in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the question as to if there are deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party, in this context delving deep in to the entire materials available in the record, it came to our notice that the same policy has commenced in between the deceased husband of the Complainant and the Opposite Party without the presence of any broker or officials agency which is clearly evident from the Policy Bond it’self, so it is quite but natural for a widow women who has lost her husband to commit mistake being confused of the law relating to the case as such has not claimed immediately before the Opposite Party directly, further it is clearly evident from the Policy bond it’self that the Policy has been done through net directly with the Opposite Party, Further to our observation from the materials available in the record from the Policy Bond it’self that, it has been suggested by the Opposite Party in the same to contact the Akash Motors for further renewal of the Policy and also it has never been denied by the Opposite Party that the said Akash Motors is not their authorized dealer and so in view of such circumstances it can be safely deducted that the said Akash Motors is a part of the business of the Opposite Party and further more immediately after the Accident the Complainant has reported the matter before the dealer and also has repaired her said vehicle in his service centre and also has obtained the estimation and subsequently the billing amount too, So being the authorised dealer and service centre of the Hero Honda Company it was known to him immediately after the said accident which is also coupled with the police paper filed before the Forum, the copy of the same speaks of the facts of the date of accident and the death of the deceased husband of the Complainant, also in furtherance to our observation in the last part of the Policy schedule issued by the Opposite Party it has been clearly mentioned by the Opposite Party as the duty of the insured in case of any accident in clause 1(one) & 4 (Four ) in clear dictum that’’ in the event of accident to the Vehicle ,please inform in writing to the Authorized Hero Honda dealer & or Insurance Company’s office immediately’’,. & in clause 4.’’If the Vehicle is to be repaired at a workshop other than Hero Honda authorized work shop please inform to the nearest office of surveyor to assess the Loss’’, so in this particular case the Complainant has intimated the fact of the accident of the Vehicle in question to the authorized deaer of Hero Honda Company of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co, Ltd along with a copy of Policy for appointment dealer of the Hero Honda Company and also as per the clause 4(four) of the Policy condition has repaired the same in the Hero Honda’s authorized workshop, and to substantiate her case also has filed an affidavit in counter to the affidavit filed by the Opposite Party wherein she has categorically mentioned that she has repaired the said vehicle in the authorized dealer and the service centre of the Hero Honda company and also has lodged her claim before him and also has mentioned the date of the accident Para 6(six) of the complaint as on Dt.09.03.2015 thus has not gone beyond the policy condition of the company Opposite Party, hence mere denials of the Opposite Party of having any knowledge of the accident and the consequence of the same is not known to them and that the claim is not filed before them is a tactical interpretation of the Policy Condition to avoid the claim of the Complainant which in our view too is an act of deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant, hence our view is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Thirdly with regard to the question of the Non-joinder of necessary party. The Advocate for the Opposite Party vehemently placed his arguments with regard to the submission of the estimation of repair of the vehicle of the Complainant and the bill submitted before the Forum which the Complainant claims to have been issued by the Akash Motors is not at all admissible unless and until it is proved by the said Akash Motors himself, that apart has declined to admit the submission of such estimate and the bill to the effect as, if the same were true, then he should have been made a party to prove the same to which the complainant could not defy in any manner for such omission so in view of such a circumstances the same created a cloud of doubt in the mind of the Opposite Party and in the mind of the Forum too, that apart the Advocate for the Opposite Party pressed before the Forum a vital question with regard to the claim of the Complainant that he has lodged the claim form before the said Akash Motors with regard to the amount of compensation, that had the same been realy lodged before him then he could have filed a copy of the same before the Forum too which has also been fortified by his reliance on the provision U/s 64UM of the Insurance Act that in case of any accident of any vehicle it is the mandatory duty of the victim party to lodge a claim form duly filled up with all requisites before the Insurance Company to enable the same to investigate and assess by appointing a Surveyor having being issued with a valid license to assess the actual loss sustained by the claimant, to which also the Complainant could not place any cogent reason for such of his act, which made us bound to feel the necessity of the presence of the particular party i.e. the Akash Motors by making him a party to enlighten the forum regarding the issue but the Complainant has failed to make him a party, So in view of the above cited facts and circumstances we don’t have other option to express our view in favor of the Opposite Party.
Thirdly with regard to the claim of the Complainant, in view of the above facts circumstances of the case we are of the consensus view that the present case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, hence our order follows.
O R D E R
Hence in view of the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the Complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary Party, as such the Complaint is dismissed against the Opposite Party, and accordingly the same is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.11.05.2018 and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t
I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
