Orissa

Rayagada

CC/2/2016

Sri Hanuman Prasad Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s National Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 02 / 2016.                                              Date.    23     .     5  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Hanuman Prasad Jain, S/O: Suraj Bhan Jain,  New Colony, Po/    Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Manager,  National Insurance Company Ltd., Div No. 10, Flat No. 101, 106, N-1, BMC house, Cannaught Palace,  New Delhi, Pin No. 110 001.

2.The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Rayagada.

                                                                                                            .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  Pratap  Chandra Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGMENT

                The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for   non payment of  balance insurance claim a sum Rs.15,700/- towards repair bill of accident vehicle Maruti Swit OD-18-5859 for which  the complainant  sought compensation  inter alia  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps   taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant is the owner of the Maruti Swit vehicle  bearing Regd. No. OD-18-5859. There is no  dispute that the complainant was taken   policy from the O.P. bearing  No.35101031156136768623  for the period from 13.5.2015 to 12.5.2016.  Undisputedly the O.Ps have under  taken to  indemnify  the insured/complainant  for valid and reasonable own  damage losses for the vehicle besides the statutory third party payment obligation.

The O.Ps in their written version para No.3  has asserted that  the O.P.  was got information from the  complainant about the accident of his vehicle on Dt. 10.11.2015    at  8.30 A.M.  in   Rayagada  town.  After receipt of the information  from the complainant the O.Ps  was issued necessary papers for submission of claim and deputed  the  Surveyor to assess the damage of the  vehicle. The policy bond which is a  contract between the complainant and the O.P.  promises to indemnify the insured  for the expenses incurred by him for repair/replacement of parts after making statutory deductions as well as depreciation applicable  on each  part as per  the age of the vehicle along with the value of the  any salvages so left.

The O.Ps in their written version para No.4 has   asserted that the complainant  was submitted a bill for Rs. 45,735/- but after taking in to the surveyor report and  basing on statutory   deduction as per insurance policy   the O.P. came to figure of Rs.22,900/- and asked the complainant to submit a receipt for the said amount. The  complainant  was submitted the receipt for the said amount and  after getting the receipt the  O.Ps was issued necessary cheque  in favour of the complainant which  the complainant was received and encashed, which  is not disputed by the complainant.

The O.Ps in their written version para No.5  has contended that  the O.ps was not paid the repair charges for the rear beam and nub(parts of the car), because as evident from the nature of the damage and after taking in to consideration the Surveyor report, damage on the rear portion of the vehicle were not  result of the same accident. So the O.P.  was reduced the claim and settled the claim  on Rs. 22,900/- and paid the said amount to the complainant.

The O.Ps in their written version para No.6  has contended that  the claim of the  complainant  to a tune of Rs. 15,700/- is not reasonable and the complainant    has been properly indemnified by the O.P  and was issued discharge  voucher  in favour of the complainant.

 On perusal of the record  this forum  found the O.Ps have not disputed the case of the complainant in relation to insurance  of vehicle for the period in question. The vehicle met with an accident as mentioned by the complainant is also not disputed. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,700/- has been disputed.  The complainant  is entitled to recovery of interest, damages cost of litigation has also disputed.

This forum found as per the  survey report the O.Ps  had paid  a sum of Rs. 22,900/- to the complainant which is not  disputed by the complainant.

During  the course of  hearing the  complainant argued  that  repair charges estimated by the  authorized service  centre was Rs.45,735/-  as  per the bills,  but  the   O.Ps  were asked the complainant  to claim only Rs.22,900/- which is admissible  for such payment and it is also confirmed by their  official surveyor.  Accordingly  the complainant  was submitted a receipt showing the  acknowledgement of the said amount  along with the  claim form.

During  the course of hearing before us it was revealed   the O.Ps were paid a sum of Rs.22,900/- according to  surveyor  report.   Since the surveyors report was essential for the purpose of the case.  It transpires form the surveyors report that the insurance surveyor investigated the matter and he prepared the survey report .  The surveyor assessed the loss  on total loss basis to the tune of Rs. 22,900/- in his final surveyor   report.

                 For this  the forum  relied citation  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.”

                Basing on the above citation the complainant is not entitled any relief from this forum in the present  case in hand.

                The O.P. is an insurance company and the business affair as far as the practice with customer concerned is regulated  by statutary authorities like IRDA.  The IRDA has prescribed rules in order to protect the interest of policy holder, thus by rules framed in 2002 where in it is clearly stipulated that any quary/grievances of the policy holder  shall be clarified  within 10 days  and the policy status shall be informed to the policy holder in his address on demand.  In the present case we did not find that the O.P. has adhered to the guide lines  mechanical denied   to the genuine claims of the policy holder simply depict, unethical and unfair practice of the O.Ps  dealing with grievances of complaint the omission can not be  termed as misfeasance but  malfeances and they ensuring  the interest  and rights of policy holder can not leave the culprit as the O.P’s at present escaped from compensation & cost.      

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed. To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. Accordingly the case  is disposed of. Parties are directed to suffer their respective cost.

.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this         23rd.   Day of   May,  2018.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                                             President