1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he insured his vehicle Maruti Ertiga VDI bearing Regd. No. OD-30-A-8001 with the Opp. Party vide policy no. OG-18-2413-1801-00002451. It is alleged that on 30/31.08.2018 the said vehicle while coming towards Malkangiri, was met with an accident near village Palkabasha under Boipariguda P.S., for which he lodged a complaint before Boipariguda P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 0114 dated 31.08.2018 and turned into G.R. No. 880/2018 in the file of Hon’b;e SDJM, Jeypore and reported the matter to the Opp. Party.Further it is alleged that after conducting the survey by one Mr. Rath of Opp. party, as per his advise, Complainant shifted his damaged vehicle to the garage and submitted all relevant documents and estimate bill of Rs. 5,64,773/- to the surveyor, and on reply, the surveyor demanded Rs. 20,000/- for early settlement of the claim.But while the complainant could not paid the said amount, the O.P. on different dates with one pretext or the other have denied to settle the insurance claim.Thus with other allegations, showing deficiency in service, complainant filed this case, claiming to settle the claim on IDV basis alongwith Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. The Opp. Party appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed their written version admitting the issuance of the insurance policy vide no. OG-18-2413-1801-00002451 against the alleged vehicle and occurrence of accident of the alleged vehicle, but strictly denied with the plea of complainant contending that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case under provision of Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act and complainant has informed them after 37 days of the alleged accident, which is also violation of policy condition.  Further they have contended that as per chargesheet vide G.R. No. 880/2018 of Hon’ble SDJM, Jeypore the alleged vehicle used on hire and reward, which is also violation of insurance policy condition, and with other contentions, showing their no liability they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Complainant has filed the following documents :
   1. Copy of R.C. Book,
   2. Copy of insurance policy,
   3. Copy of pollution testing report,
   4. Copy of D.L. issued in the name of Balaram Pujari,v.
   5. Copy of Tax receipt,
   6. .Copy of PAN Card,
   7. Copy of letter dated 25.02.2019, 12.03.2019, 19.03.2019 issued by O.P.
   8. Copy of estimate dated 30.09.2018 issued by Legend Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jeypore. 
   9. Copy of G.R. Record vide G.R. No. 880/2018.
   10. Copy of medical report (will be submitted during hearing).
       
       Whereas, O.P. has filed the following documents :-
       a. Copy of insurance polisy,
       b. Copy of policy wording,
       c. Copy of statement U/s 161
       d. Copy of letter dt. 25.02.2019
       e. Copy of letter dt. 12.03.2019
       f. Copy of letter dt. 19.03.2019
       g. Affidavits sworn by one Pratik Srichandan, Legal Executive
       h. Affidavit sworn by Sri Dharani Dhar Das., the loss assessor, for Rs. 4,44,873/- (assessment only for parts and labour). 

          Parties have filed the above documents in support of their submissions. Heard from the parties through their respective A/R at  length and perused the record and documents available in the record.

4. In the instant case, issuance of insurance policy vide no. OG—19-2403-1803-00001819 valid from 23.02.2018 to 22.02.2019  against the alleged vehicle is an admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact that during the valid period of policy, the alleged vehicle met with an accident 31.08.2018 for which a complaint was lodged before the Boipariguda P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 0114 dated 31.08.2018 and accordingly, G.R. No. 880/2018 in the file of Hon’ble S.D.J.M., Malkangiri was initiated.  The allegations of complainant is that though the alleged vehicle was used only for medical purpose but not on hire or reward, whereas the only contention of O.P. is that since the vehicle was used on hire or reward basis at the material time of accident, as such they have repudiated the insurance claim vide their letter dated 19.03.2019.

5. After detailed hearing and arguments made by the A/R for respective parties, now the only questions arose before us to decide is : - whether the alleged vehicle was using on hire and reward at the material time of accident?

6. We have carefully gone through the documents and materials available in the record as filed by the complainant and the O.P.  On verification of the documents, we have found that the alleged vehicle was validly insured with the O.P. at the material of accident which is not disputed one.  It is also not disputed that on the next day of the accident, complainant has lodged a complaint with the Boipariguda P.S vide F.I.R. No. 0114 dated 31.08.2018 and subsequently the G.R. case vide no. 880/2018 was initiated.  Further it is ascertained as per the G.R. case record, only two witnesses have stated that the alleged vehicle was used on hire basis, whereas other six witnesses, who are said to be the relatives of injured and deceased person, have not uttered any single word regarding hiring of the alleged vehicle.  Further the statements are typed one but not own hand written statements of witnesses and the same do not contain any signature of the respective witnesses.  Further it is ascertained that the O.P. has not filed any single document to prove their contention regarding hiring of alleged vehicle as to how much amount was paid for such hiring.  Thus, only the submission without any cogent evidence regarding any fare of hiring the alleged vehicle, it cannot believable that the alleged vehicle was used on hire basis at the material time of accident. Hence we do not feel that the alleged vehicle was carrying passengers on hire basis, as such we are not inclined to accept the versions of O.P.Further we would like to make it clear that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is strictly not applicable under the Act, 1986 and such statements can be used for the purpose as laid under Section 32 of Evidence Act.Hence denying the liability on the technical grounds basing on the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, will be prejudiced to the rights of actual aggrieved customers. Thus the plea taken by the O.P. is of no value.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

7. Further it is ascertained that the contentions of O.P. to the effect that complainant has informed them after 37 days of the alleged accident, which is clear violation of policy condition, but utterly failed to prove their contentions as have not filed any single document to prove that the complainant has informed them after 37 days of the alleged accident, hence the submissions of complainant was accepted to the effect that he has informed the O.P. regarding the accident immediate after the alleged accident.

8. As per the discussions made in the foregoing paras, in our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the assessed value made by the surveyor from the Opp. Party.  Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims, but failed, for which he is compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                         ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the assessed value of Rs. 4,44,873/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 19.03.2019 till the date of order.  Further the Opp. Party is also herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.  And all the direction should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 4,44,873/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 19.03.2019 till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of September, 2020.  

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.