ORDER BY HON’BLE MEMBER- MRS. M. SWAIN:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,16,238/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony due to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation”.
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a permanent resident of village Gandakipur of Jagatsinghpur district and purchased an Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AN-3445 in the year 2018 for maintaining his livelyhood. The vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company (O.P.) on 05.12.2018 vide policy No.345105/31/2019/3895 for a period of one year (package policy) on 30.5.2019 the insured truck was met an accident while going from Paradeep to Koida on N.H.53 loaded with coal near Nanpur Chhaka under Balichandrapur P.S. with an ‘Ox’ while saving the ‘Ox’ the vehicle due to sudden steering failure, the truck capsized on the road and got damaged. On getting the information of accident, Balichandrapur police visit the spot and entered a SDE bearing No.11 on 30.5.2019 at Balichandrapur police station. The complainant lodged claim before the opposite party No.2 claiming compensation. Accordingly the opposite party No.2 engaged surveyor for spot visit and assessment of damage caused to the insured truck. As per advice of the surveyor, the complainant towed the vehicle to the authorized dealer Manguli (Rashmi Motors) and after preliminary verification of the damage, the dealer submitted an estimate for Rs.11,05,013/- to the opposite on 04.6.2019 and thereafter submitted an supplementary estimate after through verification for Rs.2,14,420.41 paisa on 25.7.2019, totaling the expenditure of Rs.13,19,433.41 paisa required for repair of the damaged insured vehicle to bring the same to running condition. After repairing of the vehicle, the authorized dealer finally submitted bill of Rs.9,77,429/- to the opposite party for payment as per the terms of the policy, but the opposite party only paid a sum of Rs.6,61,191/- to the dealer through NEFT on 22.10.2019 but without any reason and with ulterior motive, did not pay the rest bill amount of Rs.3,16,238/- to the dealer for which dealer did not release the insured vehicle from its custody to the complainant. Due to nonpayment of the entire cost incurred for repair of the vehicle, the complainant was forced to pay the rest amount to the dealer to release the truck, for which, the complainant sustain mental agony and financial loss and there by the opposite parties caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties filed their written version stating as under;
The opposite parties have issued a commercial vehicle package bearing No.345105/31/2019/3895 in favour of the complainant covering the risk of his truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AN-3445 which was valid from 05.12.2018 to 04.12.2019. During the currency of insurance policy the vehicle met with an accident on 30.5.2019 for which the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite parties. On receipt of the claim intimation, the opposite parties had deputed the surveyor for survey and assessment of loss who submitted his report on 16.9.2019 with net assessment of loss as Rs.6,80,000/-. The complaint about the payment of Rs.3,16,238/- by the complainant to the repairer Rasmi Motors is concerned, the same is not within the knowledge of the opposite parties and even if it will be established with the same has been paid by him then also since he has received Rs.6,61,191/- towards full and final satisfaction of his claim after submitting the duly signed discharge garage settlement voucher as such, no further amounts is payable by the opposite parties.
It is not disputed that the insured vehicle was met an accident on 30.5.2019. The opposite parties have informed and the opposite party No.2 engaged surveyor for spot visit and assessment of damage caused to the insured vehicle. The surveyor who surveyed the illfated vehicle behind the back and without knowledge of complainant submitted a report to the opposite party on 16.9.2019 with a damage assessment of Rs.6,80,000/-. That the insurer who ought to have taken a decision within 30 days seems to have taken decision on dtd.16.9.2019 without application of judicial mind and is not servicing a copy of surveyor report to the insured to ventilate his grievances if any, but straight way remitted Rs.6,61,191/- to the authorized workshop is not intimating insured deposit total estimated repairing last made by workshop is as Rs.9,77,429/-. The copy of voucher of workshop is annexed as Annexure-VIII. The complainant could not be able to get the asset due to paucity of funds and an amount of Rs.3,16,238/- must have to be paid to the workshop to get the asset to be released. The opposite parties despite being moved by the complainant in this regard seem to have remained silent. However law is well settled that all norms of settlement must have to be completed within 60 days and delay if any, must be explained readily but in this case insurer (O.Ps.) appears to have deaf ear for the same for which it could not but seem that the insured subjected to undergo mental agony and loss of business. This view gets support of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in NS 1986-99 at page 4781 the case between United India Insurance Co. Vrs. M.K.J. Corporation.
B) Claim- insurance claim – settlement of – two months is a reasonable time for the insurance company to take a decision whether claim requires to be settled or rejected in accordance with the policy – appellant insurer liable to pay interest for further delay till date of payment.
C) Interest – rate of – what rate of interest the insured-respondent is entitled to get? – as per the directions of the Government of India the appellant- insurance company has no option but to invest the money in the securities specified by the Government of India under which the insurance company is securing interest on investment at the rate of 11.3% per annum. Under these circumstances, the appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay interest at 12% per annum.
According to National Commission the decision made in 1986 to 2005 at page 9673 (NS) is a case between Oriental Insurance Co. Vrs. Anil Kumar Dhope in which observed as follows; Insure- vehicle – damaged in accident- estimate of repairs by authorized service station Rs.2,20,000/- less assessed by surveyor’s report at Rs.52,581/- estimate prepared by authorized service station not challenged- body shell to be changed to restore originality- held repairs to be carried on by service station not surveyors- order of paying Rs.1,72,000/- upheld – revision dismissed.
The above said decision is totally applicable to the case in hand and the opposite parties are held liable to pay Rs.3,16,238/- with interest 6% per annum from the date of reimbursement of previous amount till date of payment to the complainant. The order is to be carried out within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the opposite parties. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 24th Feb.,2023.
