BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.

C.C. No. 29 OF 2018.

Present:          Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik       -     President (I/c.).

Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy       -     Member.

Sasmita Karan.

At.Badananapada

PS: Astaranga

Dist.-purl 

Present address:

At-Kendupadar (Gopabandhu Balashram Premises)

Po-Phulbani

Dist.-Kandhamal.                                                      ……………….Complainant.

-Versus-

 Branch Manager

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Branch office:-

At- Vikashplaza Market Complex

Main Road, Phulbani.762001.

Po/Ps- Phulbani.

Dist- Kandhamal.                                                       ……………Opposite-Party

For the Complainant:  Self

For the Opp. Party:  Advocate Sri N.K Patra, Phulbani.

Date of order:-26^th  March 2021.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant owned  a auto rickshaw  bearing No- OR 06H-8803 for earning her livelihood purpose which was insured with the OPs Company for the period from 14/12/2016 to 13/12/2017 vide  policy No- 55060331160100001673. On dated 27/02/2017 the said vehicle was met accident     at village Sudrukumpa, Dist. Phulbani. After the accident   the complainant intimated to the authority of New India   Assurance co. Ltd. The accident vehicle shifted to M/S ADISHAKTI BODY BUILDING REPAIR WORKS, PHULBANI for repairing, thereafter and the complainant released the vehicle after repairing on payment of Rs Rs.46, 000/- to the service centre.  On repeated approach the OP deputed surveyor who inspect the damaged vehicle in order to assess the loss, and accordingly prepare the report with an estimated Rs. 20,000. The complainant submitted the claim form along with all required papers before the OP. On dated 10/08/2018 the OP repudiated the claim on the ground that the DL of the driver was ineffective and invalid. According to the complainant the policy was in force and other relevant document of the vehicle was valid. For the above circumstances the complainant suffered in both financially and mentally for the deficiency in service and negligence of the OPs. Result of which the present complaint filed and claimed reliefs as under.

1. To issue direction to the OPs to settle the claim in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs 46,000 towards repairing cost of the vehicle.
2. To grant compensation for mental agony and financial loss.

The complainant has also filed certain documents in support of her case but did not filed any money receipt towards the repairing of the damaged vehicle. Accordingly the case of the complainant admitted and issued notice to the OP for appearance and filling of version. Upon the notice, the OP appeared through their counsel and filed version. In para 5 the OP submits that after receiving the intimation from the complainant the OP deputed surveyor and loss assessor of Berhampur to survey the vehicle on dated 12/03/2017 and after the completion of survey on the surveyor submitted his final report of Rs. 20,000/- vide report No. CM/MV/8075 dtd. 07/05/2018.    In Para 8   the OP submits that the DL of driver Nilakantha Digal was not effective as the driver does not have authorized to drive the Auto rickshaw. In Para 9 of the version the OP justified the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that the DL of the driver Nilakantha Digal was not  valid  and effective at the material time of accident . Further the OP claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and for dismissal of the complaint as no merit.

After careful consideration of the above facts, we peruse the petition, written version, evidence affidavits and related documents filed from both the sides. We are of the considered view that the policy was effective at the time of accident. It is admitted that the accident taken place within the policy period, and the OP deputed the surveyor who placed his report of loss for the tune of Rs 20,000/- . The OP only disputed the driving license but failed to prove the case with valid documents regarding the investigation conducted by the police, similarly the OP not filed the seizure list as well as final form in the case of the alleged accident, though in the version OP stated the vehicle was in police custody. So the OP is duty bound to furnish the documents to prove their stand, merely the negligence of the complainant, the case of the complainant cannot be discarded.   Hence order. 

O R D E R

Therefore the case of the complainant is allowed against the OPs , the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs 20,000/- as per the surveyor report dated 07/05/2018 along with interest @6% P.A from the date of claim to till the date of payment , apart from that the OP is liable to pay Rs 2,000/- towards compensation and Rs 1000/- for litigation cost  to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order , in the event of non compliance of this order all the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A from the date of order to till the date of payment . Accordingly the C.C disposed off.

 Order pronounced in the open court on this 26^th the day of March 2021. 

              Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT