Orissa

Kendujhar

43/2014

Pratap Chandra Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Surjeet Das & Associates

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 43 OF 2014

Pratap Chandra Pradhan, aged about 35 years,

S/o: Sri Makardhwaj Pradhan,

Permanent resident of village: Deogaon,

P.S: Jagannathpur, Dist- Keonjhar………………………………………………..Complainant

                             Vrs.

The Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Keonjhar Branch, At: Mining Square,

Block No.771, P.O: Keonjhargarh,

P.S: Town, Dist: Keonjhar………………….………………………………………….Op. Party

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Adv. for the Complainant - Sri Surjeet Das & Associates

Advocate for OP - Sri A.K. Pattnaik & R.R. Rana

______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing - 15.09.2014                                                                                        Date of Order - 17.03.2017

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. The fact in brief that the complainant owned a TATA SK 1613 Tipper, bearing Regd. No.OR-09K-8531, in earning for livelihood.

2. Complainant submitted the vehicle was insured under package (Goods Carrying other than 3 wheel) Public Carriers and Policy No.16300631126365000328 having covered from 11/08/2012 to 10.08.2013, a premium consideration of Rs.19,364/-. 

3. The vehicle TATA Truck in the question is financed by Magma Shrachi Finance Limited. It is alleged the vehicle was stolen on date of 18.11.2012. The matter reported with the police. The P.S Case No.57/2012 dt.18/11/2012. The corresponding G.R Case No.541 of 2012.

4. The complainant reported the matter to the Insurer. The Insurer since one year, extending or dill dallying the matter with one or other pretext in not settling a genuine claim. The petitioner had sustained loss to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and being aggrieved institute the claim with prayer to direct the OP to pay the Insured amount along with compensation and cost. Relied on photocopies certified & noncertified.

5. In pursuant to notice, the OP appeared and contested the case in contending the case has no cause of action, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and as laid not maintainable under the law and liable to be dismissed.

6. Further contending, the complainant has to make a short fall of Rs.1,000/- towards the premium, the petitioner has suppressed & misrepresented material fact which create doubts on the veracity of the occurrence inter alia the claim intimation has made in post 5 days of the occurrence being a violation of policy condition.

7. On the other hand admitted, the package policy No.16300631126365000328 and the claim is yet to be finalized. Rather said that this case is premature in nature.

8. On the contrary, the OP repulsed allegation is vague, no deficiency of service to ensue, in order to patch up his own faults so also to take undue advantage the case is filed so it is badly necessary to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

9. The material on record i.e. the Policy certificate is admittedly issued by National Insurance Company and the period of Insurance covers from 11.08.2012 to 10.08.2013 and the IDV value is Rs.6,00,000/-. The date of occurrence is 18/11/2012 and intimated to the Insurer on dated 23/11/12 after 5 days. On the issue we can refer to the NC opinion made in reliance upon the Supreme Court Judgement in the matter; Oriental Insurance Company Versus Paresh Chandra Chadha, (Civil Appeal No.6739/2010) in which held – “On account of delayed intimation the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an enquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same”.

10. In furtherance it is made out in the authority: - HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Versus Bhagchand Saini which has ruled that, “Any delay in the notification of theft to the Police or the Insurer in Motor Vehicle Policies is fatal to the claim”.

11. Also we find the complainant has accorded some documents on the same context on which we opine - “Mere producing of certain documents, which are not public documents and mostly unattested photocopies is not synonymous of tendering those documents in evidence” - M/s Dhara Enterprise Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. so no piece of evidence available on the side of the complainant in corroboration to this pleadings.

In such a circumstance, the case of the complainant does not stand on merit pales into insignificance thus liable to dismissed.

  

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 17^th March 2017.      

                                                                                                                                                                 

                  I agree                                                                     

             (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                      (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

            Member (W)                                                                                                         President                    

         DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                             DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                              

 

                                                                                 Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                               (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                          (President)

                                                                                     DCDRF, Keonjhar