District Consumer Disputes Redressal COMMISSION, MayurbhanJ,BARIPADA.
C.C. Case No. 37 OF 2023.
Anupama Ray, aged about 39 years,
W/o. Bikash Ray,
At-Baghadiha, P.O.-Goudadiha,
P.S.-Baripada Sadar,
District- Mayurbhanj. ……. Complainant.
=Vrs.=
1. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
At- Plot No. 267. Lalbazar, Soubhagya Bhawan,
P.O.- Baripada, P.S.- Baripada Town,
District- Mayurbhanj. PIN-757001.
2. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Division Office, At/P.O.-Sahadevkhunta,
P.S.- Balasore, Dist.- Balasore.
PIN-756001 ……… Opp. Parties.
For the Petitioner/Complainant:- Husna Nesan and
H. Sahu, Advocates.
For the Opp. Parties :- Narayan Bar, Advocate.
Present:- Sri Biranchi Narayan Patra, President.I/c
Sri Jiban Krushna Behera, Member.
Date of filing :-12.07.2023. Date of Order:- 25.4.2024
Consumer Dispute Case filed under Section 35 of C.P Act 2019.
-
Mr. Biranchi Narayan Patra, President, I/c
1. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the Complainant in his complaint are that the Complainant got his Mahindra Bolero Pick-Up vehicle registered vide No. OD-11U-7571 and insured under the O.P.- United India Assurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No.2607013121P112683929, which stood valid from 09.03.2022 to the midnight of 08.03.2023 and premium amounting to Rs.20,564/- was paid vide Receipt No. 1012607012114400041. When the said Pick-Up vehicle was driven by it’s driver namely Prasanna Kumar Pradhan at Galudihi, near Khadia Colony due to sudden coming of a cow in it’s front, the vehicle in order to save the cow, turned and dashed against divider resulting in falling of the vehicle into deep drain and luckily it’s driver jumped and was saved. The Complainant immediately went to the spot, verified the condition of vehicle, informed the concerned show-room, took the vehicle to the show-room by a private carriage for its repairing. Accordingly, the Surveyor Sanjay Kumar Nenna of Basanti Auto Agency, Balasore inspected the damaged parts of vehicle, estimated and calculated the cost of repair to be Rs.6,00,000/- on total loss basis. For the accident, the Complainant also informed Galudihi police who made S.D. Entry vide No.06/22 dated 29.08.2022. Thereafter, the complainant made claim to the O.P.- Insurance Company, but the Company treated the same to be “No Claim”, as the fitness of the vehicle was expired by the time of accident. When the Company did not respond, the Complainant constrained to send Advocate’s Note to both the O.Ps., who received the notice and replied but remained silent, for which the Complainant filed this Complaint claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant relied on documents like Xerox copy of Insurance Policy, Xerox copy of Registration Card, Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card, Xerox copy of closure of Motor Claim No., Insured consent letter, Xerox copy of Driving license etc.
2. In response to the notice issued from this Commission, the O.Ps. entered their appearance, filed vokalatnama in favor of Advocate Sri Narayan Bar and later on filed Written Version on 04.10.2023. In their Written Version, the O.Ps., while denying the allegations made in the complaint, pleaded that the vehicle in-question was having no valid fitness at the time of accident, which is mandatory for plying a motor vehicle on public road in a public place, which itself violates the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Besides, the Complainant has not sent the photographs of the accident vehicle on different angles and he has filed this case to avail illegal advantage from the O.Ps. with collusion of the police people of Galudih Police-station. Accordingly, the O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the Complainant.
3. In view of the above pleadings of the Parties, the following points need to be determined.
(1) Whether the Mahindra Bolero Pick-Up vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD-11U-7571 of the complainant was duly insured under the O.Ps. at the relevant time of accident and if so, whether the Insurance stands valid or not?
(2) Whether the fitness certificate of the vehicle in-question at the relevant was valid or not and if found invalid, then whether the O.Ps. have got any liability to pay the claim of the complainant.?
FINDINGS
4. The Complainant in support of her identity filed the Xerox copy of her Aadhaar Card which is affirmative and the Registration of Certificate shows that she is the registered owner of Bolero Pick-Up bearing Regn. No. OD-11U-7571 and the said vehicle was having Pollution Control Certificate and duly insured under the O.Ps. vide Policy No. 2607013121P112683928 and on perusal of Insurance Policy(Xerox Copy), it stands valid from 9.3.2022 to midnight of 8.3.2023. The complainant in his complaint claimed that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by one Prasanna Kumar Pradhan and he(the complainant) filed the Xerox copy of Smart Card of Driving License of said Prasanna Kumar Pradhan and on perusal of the same, it shows that the Vehicle Class is “Trans. LMV” and the D.L. was issued to Mr. Pradhan on 02.01.l990 and it stands valid till (Transport) 15.03.2026.The alleged accident took place on 29.8.2022. So by the time of accident of the vehicle No. OD-11U-7571, it’s insurance was valid as well as the driver who was plying the vehicle, possessed a valid D.L.. So the point No.1 is decided affirmatively in favour of the Complainant.
5. So far the point No.2 is concerned, the complaint petition is silent as to the fitness of the vehicle OD-11U-7571. On the other hand, the O.Ps. repudiated the claim on the sole ground that the vehicle OD-11U-7571 was having no fitness at the time of alleged accident. When the fitness of the accident vehicle is in dispute and the fitness certificate is not available on record, relevancy leans towards Surveyor’s report. The Surveyor’s Report is also absent on record. However, the Complainant sent her consent letter to the O.P. No.2 through Surveyor Mr. Sanjay Kumar Neura and on perusal of said letter, it is apparent that after inspection, the Surveyor has assessed the loss and the assessment was shown to them. After thorough discussion, they do agree with the assessment drawn by him and accept the loss to be settled as per his assessment in total loss basis. Accordingly, the complainant consented for settlement of the damaged vehicle for Rs.90,000/- only without RC and Rs.1,75,000/- with R.C. subject to the Insurer’s acceptance. When the O.Ps. have treated the claim of the complainant as “NO CLAIM” and communicated the same to her vide letter No.260701/OD-Claim/2022-2023/174 dated 17.01.203(filed by complainant), the consent letter of Complainant through Surveyor to the O.P. No.2 is of no relevancy.
5. On a close scrutiny of the Insurance Policy issued by Insurer-O.Ps. in favour of Insured-Complainant, it is revealed under heading of IMPORTANT NOTICE that “ In the event of accident, the insured should inform United India Insurance Co. immediately to arrange spot survey”. In this regard, the Complainant-Insured has mentioned in her Complaint that-
“ immediately the complainant went to the spot to verify the condition
of the vehicle, then informed to the concerned show-room, took the
vehicle to the show-room by a Private carriage for repairing…(para-6)
That, Surveyor, Sanjay Kumar Nenna, Basanti Auto Agency,
Balasore, Odisha made an estimate of the damage parts and it was
Calculated that “full damaged” total loss basis. The full valuation of
The said vehicle Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs) only as per
Insurance Policy………. (para-7)”
From the above pleading, it clearly goes to show that the spot was immediately verified by Surveyor-Sanjay Kumar Nenna. The condition of the Insurance Policy is found to have been fulfilled in the event of accident. The above being the position, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the O.Ps.-Insurance Company on the ground of having no fitness of the vehicle in-question at the time of accident is having no weightage and hence, the same fails.
6. In the ultimate analysis, it is proved and established that the accident vehicle of the Complainant was duly insured under the O.Ps. and at the time of it’s accident, the Insurance was valid and as such, the O.Ps. are held liable for the reliefs as claimed by her.
7. Before proceeding to the order, it may not be irrelevant to mention here that in the prayer portion of the complaint petition, the complainant prayed for a direction to the O.P.-Insurance to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards Compensation with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. This case is filed on 12.7.2023 and will be disposed of within the month of April, 2024, which covers about 9(nine) months. If the above compensation amount is taken into consideration, it would certainly be excessive. However, on perusal of complaint petition, it reveals at Para-7 that the Surveyor Sanjay Kumar Nenna, Basanti Auto Agency, Balasore estimated the damages and calculated “full damaged” total loss basis and accordingly, the full valuation of the vehicle amounts to Rs.6,00,000/-.In fact, the report of Surveyor is not available on record. However, considering the nature of accident and claim by the complainant, so also the pleading of the O.P., it will not be improper to hold that there must be some damages to the vehicle.
The OP insurance company only admitted that the loss assessor reported that the during the accident the vehicle didn’t have a fitness certificate. This commission relied upon the decision passed on The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vr. Prandhar Agarwal on 30.10.2008 of Chhatisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Pandari, Raipur passed an Appeal No.214/07 & other decision of the National Commission referred in this decision here it is held that & taken view in case of breach of policy condition as to limitation of use of vehicle the insured is entitled for settlement of claim on non-standard basis.
Despite violation of Policy condition the claim has to be settled on non-standard basis of 75% on estimate of surveyor of Rs.6,00,000/- which is a genuine ground of the complainant for ends of justice.
So, the present case is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for.
O R D E R.
In the result, the Complaint Petition is allowed on contest. The O.Ps. are directed to pay complainant a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards damage of the vehicle (On non standard basis), Rs.50,000/- Towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost within two months from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of court.
Pronounced the order in the open Commission on this 25th day of April 2024 under seal of the Commission.
I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President, I/c.
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA. DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA.
Computerized on my dictation and corrected by me.
Sd/-
President, I/c
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA.
Memo __________/ Dt………../ 04/ 2024.
Supply free copy to all the parties concerned for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
President, I/c.
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA
