Khageswar Mohapatra - Complainant(s)


Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)


08 Jun 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/13/2010
( Date of Filing : 22 Jan 2010 )
1. Khageswar Mohapatra
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
GE Plaza,Airport Road,Pune,Maharastra
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
Dated : 08 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This  is  a petition filed by  Sri Khageswar Mohapatra U/s. 12  of  C.P.Act,1986 for  some reliefs.

2.       The  case of  the  complainant is that he   is   the  registered  owner  of   a truck bearing  Regd. No. OR-19C-7946  and  the   vehicle  was  insured  with  opp.party  vide policy No. OG-09-9995-1803-00167743  with its  Bhubaneswar   branch after paying premium of Rs.18,358.00 for a sum assured of  Rs.9,00,000.00. The  policy  was valid from  20.03.2009  till 19.03.2010 mid-night. On 20.05.2009 at 2a.m  the truck was met  with  an accident  near vill.Gaham  of  Tacher, for  which  F.I R was  lodged  at Samal  Barrage  police station, Talcher. The opp.party in  his letter  dtd.25.05.2009 acknowledged the         receipt  of  intimation and   asked  for   submitting  the  documents. The  complainant   submitted  all the documents   along  with   estimate  of  repairs amounting Rs.4,00,000.00. After  repairing of the  vehicle the complainant  submitted  all the bills and replacement  of  parts  amounting Rs.3,33,866.20  excluding  personal expenses. In    the  month  of November, 2009   the   opp.party has   paid   an  amount   of  Rs.1,11,000.00  to the  financier   i.e  M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Corporation Ltd.  behind  back  of the  petitioner   without   obtaining  satisfaction /discharge  voucher from  him .The  amount  paid  is  neither  the  claimed amount basing  on  bills  nor was based  on any reasonable  calculation. The opp.party fraudulently do this to get rid of the legal  obligation/burden   which  has   to be discharged   as insurer  of the  vehicle of the  petitioner. As the   complainant  paid   all the  expenditure incurred by him,  payment to the  financier  surreptitiously  an  amount that is  much below  the  estimate  and  actual  cost   not  only illegal  but  a  deliberate   mischief   there by  deprived the  complainant  from   the legitimate  dues  resulting  mental pain and   harassment. The  opp.party has  adopted unfair trade practice   and  there is  deficiency  of  service for  not   providing   the  required  service  and paying the   legal  dues  to the  complainant. Hence  this case.

3.       Notice was  issued to the  opp.party  through  Regd. Post with A.D on 17.02.2010  and   the A.D  is  backed   and   in  the  record.

          In pursuance of  notice, the opp.party  filed written statement/show cause. The  case  of the  opp.party  is that   the  case  is  nonest, null and  void  and   it  is  not  maintainable  either in fact  or  law  due  to  inherent   legal  misconceptions and  factual  debilities.  The  case  is  bad  for  non-joinder  of   necessary  party. The  complainant  has  no cause of action   to  claim  against  the    opp.party. The  complainant   is not  a  consumer  as  definition of  C.P. Act. 1986. The  opp.party  partly admitted the   paragraph  1  to  7.  The  truck  TATA LPT 2515 bearing regd. No. OR-19C/7946 is covered   under  commercial  vehicle  package  policy bearing No. OG-09-09951803-00167743 which was  valid  from  20.03.2009 to 19.03.2010  with  hypothecation endorsement  of IMT-7 made  in favour of   financier M/S/Shiram Finance  Corporation Ltd. and  as  reported   the  alleged loss  occurred within the  tenure of the  policy. Within  the   ambit   of this  package policy, during  the period  of  validity  any damaged  caused  to the  vehicle. After  receipt of information from  the  complainant, the opp.party appointed  a  surveyor and  loss assessor, who visited  the  spot and   asked the complainant to submit the required documents but the complainant did not co-operate  with him. However ,after  receipt  of  final  survey report   on  dt. 10.07.2009  from the surveyor of  D.N.Acharya, the claim  was  settled at Rs.1,01,175.47 and  payment  was made to the  financier  after obtaining  signature of the  complainant  on the  discharge  voucher. Hence  the plea of the  complainant  to  make payment without  his  knowledge is  false and  fabricated. Paragraph-8  of the  complaint petition  is  to mislead  this  Hon’ble Forum as   the  claim  is   settled  as  per  surveyor’s  report and     to the  satisfaction of the  complainant,   hence there is  no  deficiency  in service. With  a malafied intention   the  complainant  has filed  this case, which may dismissed.


4.       Admittedly  the  complainant  is the  registered  owner of the  truck bearing  Regd. No. OR-19C-7946 which  appears  from the  photo copy of the   registration   certificate  dtd. 10.04.2006. From  the  said document it also appears  that  Shriram Transport  Finance Corporation Ltd, Kolkata is the financer of the  vehicle purchased by the  complainant. It is  also not disputed that the  aforesaid vehicle was insured  under Bajaj Allianz General Insurance  Co. Ltd and   certificate-cum- policy schedule  was  issued in favour of  the  complainant. The  complainant has  paid  the  premium amounting Rs.6435.00  and the  insurance  policy was issued  which  covered the  period   from 20.03.2009  to 19.032010 midnight. The  policy was  issued  on 13.02.2009. On perusal of the  certificate of  insurance  obtained by the  complainant  on 13.02.2099 it  is clear  that the  policy was subject  to the  IMT endorsement nos.21,7,39 and   policy wordings  attached to the  policy. The  truck of the complainant  met with an accident  on 20.05.2009 near  village Gaham is also not  disputed. Admittedly the  complainant  lodged  FIR at Samal police station on 20.05.2009 relating  to  such accident. As the vehicle  was  covered  under  the  insurance  on the date of  accident  the complainant is  entitled for the  genuine claim under the  policy. From the  written statement and  the surveyor’s report   dt. 10.07.2009  of D.N.Acharya it is  clear that the  complainant  is  entitled  to Rs.1,01,175.74.There  is   nothing   on the case record to disbelieve  such surveyors report.

          On the   other hand  it is clear from the  documents  filed by the  opp.parties that the   complainant has  signed the  claim cost confirmation   for repairing . From the  said  document it  also transpires that the  complainant  agreed  that the   opp.party  is  liable to pay  the  amount as per the surveyor’s  report  towards full and final settlement of the  claim for repairing of the  vehicle.  It is also   clear  from the  photo copy of the   claim discharge  -cum- satisfaction    voucher  signed by the  complainant that he  agreed for payment   of  an amount  of Rs.1,01,175.47  by the  opp.party towards  full and  final settlement of the claim  under  the policy. So  the allegations  of the   complainant at  paragraph- 6  of his   complaint petition that the opp.party has paid the claim  amount  to the  financer behind his  back and  without getting  any satisfaction/discharge  voucher  from   him   is  not  at all  reliable  and  trust worthy. It is  proved  by the  opp.party that  as  per settlement, the opp.party has  paid the amount which  is  in consonance   with  the  surveyor’s  report  of Mr. Acharya. It  is   clear  from the insurance  policy that the  complainant   is  bound  by IMT-7 which  relates  to  hypothecation  agreement of the   vehicle. On perusal   of the said   IMT-7 it  is clear  that the   money  shall be paid  to the pledgee  as  long as they are  the  pledgee of the  vehicle  insured and their receipt  shall  be   a  full and   final  discharge  to the  insurer  in respect of  loss   and  damage.  In  the  case  in hand  admittedly   the  Shiram Transport Finance  Co-operation Ltd, Kolkata is the  pledgee, who has received the  repaired and the  loss amount  towards full and  final settlement and it  is  deemed to be  received  by the  insurer. Hence  there is no deficiencies of service by the opp.party.

5.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

             The  case be and the same is  dismissed on  contest  without cost.

[HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo]
[HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.