Orissa

Jajapur

CC/47/2018

Susil Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager of Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Dash,Srikanta Mohapatra

23 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :  JAJPUR.

 

Presents:-   

   1.    Smt. Susmita Mishra                President,

                                    2.Sri Bibekananda Das                I/c Member.

            Dated the 23^rd day of September 2022.

C.C. Case No. 47 / 2018..

Susil Kumar Das,

S/o:- Kailash Chandra Das,

At:- Manduka, Po/PS:- Balichandrapur,

 Dist:- Jajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .  .  .  .  Complainant.

                        Versus.

 

1. Manager, Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Bhubaneswar-751009, Dist:- Khurda.
2. The Manager, Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd.,At:- Chandikhole, Po:- Sunguda,  P.S:- Badachaana, Dist:- Jajpur.

. ...Opp. Parties.

 

                       Counsels appeared for the parties.                                 

For the Complainant :-        Manoj Kumar Dash, Advocate & Associates,

For the Opp. Parties :-         Ashok Kumar Dash, Advocate.

 

Date of filing Complaint        :-                    01.06.2018

 

Date of Argument                :-                      09.09.2022

 

Date of Oder                         :-                      23.09.2022.

 

MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER (I/c) :-

            This C.C. Case No. 47 of 2018 is taken up today for order.  The present case filed on 01.06.2018.  It is unfortunate for the complainant to wait for long 4 years for redressal of his grievance.  The case in hand taken up today on priority basis being a year old matter as per the C.P. Act, 2019.

Brief fact:-

            The complainant purchased a vehicle vide Regd. No OR-04-G-1133 by availing loan from a Finance Company.  The same was insured under the O.Ps vide Policy No. FCVISO523148/05/K50112 on dt. 16.05.2012 to 15.05.2013 by paying annual premium of Rs. 22,662/- where the IDV of the vehicle is Rs. 5,50,000/-.  Unfortunately the vehicle was stolen on dt. 12.08.2012. F.I.R. was lodged as per the direction of the Hon’ble J.M.F.C., Court in 1CC No. 229/2012.  Thereafter a P.S. Case was registered vide P.S. Case No. 159/2012,  Balichandrapur P.S., Dist. Jajpur corresponding to G.R. Case No. 828/2012 since pending.  The complainant intimated the matter by Regd. Post with A.D. on dt. 13.09.2012 whose acknowledgment exhibited and claimed insurance amount but the O.P. No.1 assured to finalized the same.  The complainant repeatedly approached the O.Ps but the same has not been redressal during the last 4 years.  Being aggrieved by such inaction of the O.Ps the complainant compelled to file the present C.C. Case.

Issues :-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the C.P. Act, 2019   ?
2. Whether the C.C. Case has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation  ?
3. Denial of Insurance claim by the O.Ps whether amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitle to the Insurance claim as per his prayer due to theft of his vehicle during a valid Insurance Policy issued by the O.Ps  ?
5. Whether the complainant is entitle to any relief sought for  ?

Issue No. 1:-

            That, the complainant is a “consumer” U/s 2 (42) of C.P. Act, 2019, where the O.Ps rendered “services” to the complainant relating to Insurance.

Issue No. 2:-

            The complainant filed F.I.R. for theft of his vehicle, the concerned Police did not register the case for which the complainant compelled to file 1CC Case before the J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, on direction of the Hon’ble Court F.I.R. was registered as P.S. Case No. 159/2012 and G.R. Case No. 828/2012.  The complainant intimated to the O.Ps about the same but the O.Ps did not listen after repeated approaches made by the complainant and so also appeared before the many times personally and given regd. claim letter on dt.13.09.2012 which is annexed.  Denial of legally entitle claim amount of the complainant, the limitation period continued till disposal of the insurance claim.  The O.Ps admitted that the finding of the court as well as Police Station. The O.Ps are not aware about the genuineness of the claim.  Further the O.Ps in their written version have not raised the issue of limitation, therefore the locus standii continued since the date of filing of the C.C. Case.  The limitation period continued till dt.13.05.2018 when the O.Ps refused to settle the claim of the complainant.

Issue No. 3:-

            It was held by many S.C.D.R.C. and also by N.C.D.R.C., delay in settlement of claim is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  It was held by Hon’ble SCDRC, Himachal Pradesh, Page-161 CPR (2012) that Insurance Company is liable where vehicle was taken away by the driver and the case was declared untraced.  In the present case in hand the vehicle was stolen by unidentified person which is investigated by the police as untraced.  In the contract of Insurance Policy it is the duty of the insurer to compensate the damage sustained by theft of the vehicle of a owner who insured his vehicle and the same misfortune occurred during the validity of insurance policy.  Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the damage sustained by such theft.  It was held by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi insured is entitle to receive compensation on the basis of value shown in the insurance policy.

Issue No.4 & 5 :-

We have gone through the insurance policy wherein it was found the valuation of the vehicle is Rs.5,50,000/- and the same has been stolen during the valid period.  It was stolen on dt.12.08.2012 as per amended petition allowed by this Commission.  Therefore the O.Ps are liable to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 5,55,000/- from dt.13.09.2012 with @ 6% interest till its realization.                  This Commission is not inclined to pass any order respecting mental agony and litigation cost, and denied by this Commission.

                                    O R D E R.

            Taking into all the facts and circumstances, involved in this case, it is directed by this Commission that the O.Ps shall pay Rs. 5,55,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from dt.13.09.2012 till its realization within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The C.C. Case is allowed on contest but no order as to cost.

            Issue extract of the order to the concerned parties for compliance.

            Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of September 2022.