Orissa

Cuttak

CC/65/2018

Keshab Ch Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Swain

02 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.65/2018

                                Keshab Chandra Tripathy,

S/O:Kate Janadev Tripathy,

Res. Of At:Deopada,P.O:Manipur,

P.S:Dhenkanal Sadar,Dist:Dhenkanal,

Pin-759027.

At present C/O:Kailash /Chandra Tripathy,

Plot No.114-P,Gandhimarg,

Infront of New Bus Stand,

P.O/P.S:Athagarh,Dist:Cuttack.                                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager(Operations),

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd.,

First Floor,Hari Nivas Tower,163,Thambu Chetty

Street,Parrys Corner,Chennai,Pin-600001.

 

2.        The Manager,

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Ltd.,

IInd Floor,45/46,Hotel Basera,Ashok Nagar,

Janpath,Bhubaneswar,Odisha-751009.

 

3.         The Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

At:First Floor,Gudianali,Near Gorge Up School,

Dhenkanal.

 

4.        The Manager,

Rashmi Motors,

At:Manguli,P.O/P.S:Chowdwar,

Dist:Cuttack.... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    13.06.2018

Date of Order:  07.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.P.K.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.1 & 2:         Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3 & 4:                     None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

            The case record is put up today for orders.                          

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the O.Ps 1,2 & 3 made a settlement of insurance claim for lesser amount than that  which was claimed by the complainant appertaining to his vehicle which had met with an accident bearing Regd. No.OD-06-5505 and insurance policy No.3379/01635591/000/00 which was valid from 11.02.2017 to 10.2.2018 against claim No.3379210943 the complainant had purchased a Ashok Leyland U-2518 Tipper from Rashmi Motors,Manguli,Cuttack vide engine no.GTPZ143517 and chassis no.MB1HTLFD0HPGW4819 for a consideration of Rs.26,70,056.20 in pursuant to  invoice no.RM/CTC/784/16-17 dt.10.2.17 through finance by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. of Dhenkanal.  It was agreed in between the complainant and the financer to pay EMI @ Rs.63,252/- after which the insurance policy was issued by the insurance company vide policy no.3379/01635591/000/00.

            On 24.7.17 while the said vehicle was returning from Kaliprasad of Banki being loaded with sand towards Dhenkanal town, at Mahasapata Mani road a cow suddenly came across the said vehicle on the road as a result of which losing balance the said vehicle had dashed to a tree thereby damaging the front portion of the said vehicle.  Matter was reported at Dhenkanal Police Station and the same was reflected in station diary vide entry No.13 of 24.7.2017.  The complainant thereafter had immediately informed O.P No.3 and had made claim before O.P No.2 for the loss incurred to his vehicle.  The said damaged vehicle of the complainant was sent for repair on 28.8.17 to Rashmi Motors Workshop at Manguli of Cuttack(O.P No.4).   On 20.10.17 the repair work of the said vehicle in question was completed vide invoice no.CTC/6395/2017-18 and the total amount was reflected to be Rs.7,67,759/- by O.P No.4.  As the said amount was surprisingly reduced to lesser amount i.e. Rs.5,24,283/- and the claim was settled behind back of the complainant.  The complainant had thus to pay a sum of Rs.2,42,971/- from his own pocket towards the repair charges to O.P No.4(Rashmi Motors).  The complainant had made objection for the insurance settlement as it had not the full expenses of the damaged vehicle of the complainant which he communicated vide his e.mail letters dt.1.12.17,2.12.17 and 7.12.17.  The complainant further averred that he was not explained regarding the lesser amount of the claim as assessed and about depreciation of the charges as made.  There was exchange of pleader’s notice in between the insurance company and the complainant and ultimately when no result yielded, the complainant had approached this Commission seeking redressal with a request to direct the O.Ps 1,2 & 3 to settle his insurance claim properly and to cover the amount paid by him to O.P.No.4 to the tune of Rs.2,42,971/- together with demanding compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings.

2.         On the other hand, O.Ps No.1 & 2 have jointly contested this case and had filed their written version but O.Ps 3 & 4 have not contested this case for which they have been set exparte.

            From the written version of O.Ps No.1 & 2 it is noticed that they have prayed therein to dismiss the complaint petition being not maintainable.  They have urged that the claim of the complainant was settled on the basis of the assessment done by the surveyor as per the claim settlement procedure prescribed by IRDA and accordingly an amount of Rs.5,24,283/- was paid to the repairer Rashmi Motors(O.P No.4).  The O.Ps No.1 & 2 have stated that after getting the claim intimation they had deputed duly licensed Surveyor-Engineer Sri S.K.Mohapatra for survey and assessment of loss who submitted his report after verification that the net liability of the insurance company is Rs.5,25,000/-.  On the basis of such survey report, the O.P No.1 & 2 had paid O.P No.4 a sum of Rs.5,24,782/- towards the vehicle repair of the complainant which according to O.Ps No.1 & 2 is as per the procedure prescribed by IRDA.  Accordingly the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.

3.         Both the complainant and the O.Ps No.1 & 2 have filed supportive documents to establish their respective pleas.

4.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition and that of the O.Ps No.1 & 2 in their written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.

            i.          Whether the case as filed is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.1,2 & 3.

            Issues No.1,2 & 3 are taken up together first for the sake of convenience here in this case.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a vehicle which had met with an accident while carrying sand towards Dhenkanal.  It is also admitted that the front portion of the said vehicle of the complainant had sustained damage for which it was sent to O.P No.4(Rasmi Motors at Manguli in Cuttack for repair.  It is also not disputed that O.P No.4 had assessed total expenses towards the damage of the said vehicle of the complainant to be of Rs.7,67,754/-.  It is alleged by O.Ps No.1 & 2 that the claim was settled basing upon the survey report of the surveyor who is Engineer Sri S.K.Mohapatra.  To establish the same O.Ps No.1 & 2 have filed copies of the survey report of the said engineer along their written version.  On perusal of the same as it appears that the deputed surveyor as per the rules of IRDA had made a vivid survey and had submitted his detailed report wherein he had assessed the claim to be settled at a p[rice of Rs.5,25,000/-.  As it appears that O.P NO.4 was paid by O.P No.1 & 2 a sum of Rs.5,24,782/- towards the full land final settlement.  In this context O.Ps No.1 & 2 have relied upon a pertinent decision reported in 2020 (1) CPR 297(NC) and they have also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court published in CA No.535/1994 with C.A.No.534/1994 and (C.A.No.723of 1994).  While going through the said pertinent decisions as cited from the side of the O.Ps 1 & 2 and scrutinising the present case in hand, it is noticed that the claim of O.P No.4 is ventilated to O.Ps NO.1 & 2 where surveyed through the surveyor-engineer and basing upon his report as well as IRDA norms, the final settlement of the claim was made to the tune of Rs.5,24,283//-.  As it appears that the complainant had never raised any objection when such settlement was done.  Of course the complainant in this petition has stated to have objected later due to some of his personal problems.   This Commission after assessing the facts and keeping in mind the cited decision is of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service noticed from the side of the O.Ps while settling the claim of the complainant.  Thus, the complainant can never be said to be having any cause of action for bringing this complaint petition and the same cannot be said to be maintainable.  Hence these three important issues are answered in the negative.

Issue No.4.

            As per the above discussion, it can never be said here that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                               ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P No.3 & 4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

 

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.