Hemanta Kumar Pati - Complainant(s)


Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kumuda Chandra Mishra

21 Jun 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/39/2018
( Date of Filing : 18 Apr 2018 )
1. Hemanta Kumar Pati
At-Ward No.-3, Amalapada,Talcher Town, P.O-Talcher Town, P.S/SD-Talcher, Dist-Angul
1. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Angul Branch, At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Angul
2. Chairman, New India Assurance Company Ltd.
At- New India Assurance building, 87 MG road Fort,Mumbai-400001
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
Dated : 21 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          Hemant Kumar Pati  the  complainant   has filed  a  petition U/s. 12  of C.P.Act, 1986, alleging  deficiency  in service by the opp.parties  and claimed  for  compensation  along with other reliefs.

2.       The  case of the  complainant is that  the  complainant is the  registered owner of  a TATA ACE  bearing Registration No. OD-05Y-2911 . It  was   purchased by the  complainant  to earn  his  livelihood. One Sipun Parida was appointed   as a driver of the  aforesaid vehicle. It  was  insured  under the  opp.parties  vide policy bearing No. TAQ1015241  which was  valid  from  13.01.2018  to midnight  of  12.01.2019 . The  complainant  had paid  the premium of  Rs.24,043.00 . While  the  vehicle of the  complainant  was  parked  near  a Dhaba  on the  road  which  runs  towards Basulei  on 30.03.2018  at  1 P.M  it  was  caught fire  due to short  circuit in the engine. Due  to sudden fire  the  vehicle  was completely damaged  and the  local  people   extinguished the fire . The said   fact was  reported to the IIC, Parjang P.S on 31.03.2018 , who registered S.D.E No. 14. The  complainant  registered  his  complaint  before  the  opp.parties on 08.04.2018  which  was  registered  as  complaint  No. 74197450073. After  receipt of  such  complaint, the opp.parties  conducted an inquiry  but  till filing of the  case no compensation was paid  to the  complainant. The  complainant  is  a consumer, who has paid the  premium  to the  opp.parties. By not paying  the damage /compensation  , there is  deficiency in service on the  part of the opp.parties.

3.       Notice was  issued to opp.party No.1  through  this office, who personally received the same  on  25.04.2018. Notice to opp.party No.2 was issued  through registered post with A.D which was  served on him   and  the A.D is  available  in the case record.

4.         Opp.party No.1  has  filed his written statement  through Sr. Divisional manager, Cuttack Division  office II. The  case of the opp.party No.1  is that  there is no cause of action to file this  complaint  against  the opp.parties. The complainant   is not  consumer  at all. The  complainant has  submitted  intimation letter  before the  insurance office  on 30.03.2018, which was   duly  filled-up  and  signed  by Sipun Parida  the driver of the  vehicle  which met with  the  accident. On 02.04.2018  the  complainant  submitted  his claim  form signed by him , in which  he has described the  brief  particulars  of the  accident as follows :-

“My driver  parked  the  vehicle and  went to have lunch. When he  came back he saw  that the  vehicle had moved  by itself  and dashed to a road side iron pillar”.

Annexure- B  is the  said  claim form filed by the   complainant, where as Annexure- A  is the  intimation letter dtd.30.03.2018  submitted by  the  driver Sipun Parida. The  aforesaid  driver  has  no valid driving licence  to drive  a transport vehicle  on the  public  road on the date of accident. Hence  the  complainant is not entitled to  any claim. Annexure- C   the  certified  copy   of the  driving  licence of Sipun Parida. The  complainant has  submitted an estimate of Rs.31,580.00  for repairing of  his  vehicle which  is  not   supported with valid  documents. Engineer Ashok Kumar Behera  was  appointed as surveyor  , who conducted  the survey and  submitted his  report  vide Annexure-D. Again the opp.party No.2 engaged an independent surveyor  Sri S.K.Mohapatra who conducted the  final survey and submitted  his  report   . By  verifying the  relevant documents  and  going through the  terms and   conditions of the insurance  policy  Mr. Mohapatra  assessed  the loss to be Rs.13,300.00 . As per the  survey report, final survey report and  claim form     no loss   has been  caused  to the  vehicle  due to  fire accident. Inspite of  repeated   direction , the complainant  failed  to supply the required documents to the  surveyor  of the opp.parties. The  complainant   is  not  entitled  to  any relief  at all. 

5.       Inspite of  notice  served on opp.party No.2, he  did not appear  before this  Forum/Commission  to  contest the  case.

6.       Admittedly  the  complainant is  the registered owner of the TATA ACE  bearing Regd. No. OD-05-Y -2911  which was insured  under the opp.parties vide policy No. TAQ1015241 which was  valid  from 13.1.2018  to midnight  of  12.01.2019. The  complainant  has filed the photo copy of  the registration certificate  particulars issued  by the  Registering Authority, Cuttack. The  complainant has also filed the photo copy of  the insurance   policy  which shows that the vehicle of the  complainant  was insured under the opp.parties and the  insurance  was valid from 13.01.2018  12 A.M to 12.01.2019  12mid night. In  his  complaint petition at paragraph-4  the  complainant has  mentioned that while his  vehicle was parked near a Dhaba  on the  road on 30.03.2018 at 1 P.M ,  the vehicle  caught  fire  due  to   short circuit  in the engine , for which the vehicle was damaged. From paragraph- 5 it is  also clear that while  the  vehicle was on fire, the  local people  extinguished  the  fire. The  complainant  has filed  the  photo copy of  the  S.D.Entry  of  Parajang P.S dtd. 31.03.2018 .  On  perusal of the  said extract  copy of  S.D.Entry, it  transpires that  on 31.03.2018  at about  1P.M  while the  driver of the  complainant  had been  to take  his  lunch by  parking the  vehicle on the  side of the road, all of a  sudden the  vehicle was caught fire due to short circuits and the local  people  extinguished  the  fire. The S.D.E  number  is 14 dtd. 31.03.2018.

7.       The opp.party No.1  in his  show cause at paragraph- 6  has mentioned that the  driver Sipun  Parida  had  no valid  driving  licence to  drive a  transport vehicle on the date of  the accident. The  photo copy of  the extract  of  driving  licence has been  filed by the opp.party No.2 . On perusal of the said  copy of  D.L  of  Sipun Parida  it   transpires  that  he had no  valid  licence  to drive  transport  vehicle on the  date of alleged accident. The  photo copy of  the of the  claim intimation  letter  signed  by  driver Sipun Parida has been field  by the opp.party No.1. On perusal  of the said  claim intimation letter, it is  clear that at paragraph-10, the  driver has  clearly mentioned that he  had  parked the vehicle on the road and had been to take  his  lunch and  while  taking lunch he  found the  vehicle  went away  from the  road and  dashed against  an  iron pillar. The photo copy of  the of the  claim form filed by the  complainant  before the opp.parties  is  also  filed  by opp.party No.1. On perusal of the same it is clear that the said form has been signed  by the  complainant, in which the  complainant has mentioned that   his driver had  parked the vehicle and went  to take his  lunch and  when he  came back he  saw  the  vehicle moved by   itself and dashed  against a  road  side iron pillar. The   description of the  complaint petition regarding  the  circumstances of  the accident  is totally different  from the  claim intimation letter and  claim form  filed  by the  complainant. The S.D.Entry  made by  the  police at Parjanga P.S  is   quite  different from the  circumstances of the accident mentioned in the  claim  intimation  letter  and the  claim form . The  contains  of the  claim petition  regarding  accident is  not supported by  the complainant himself. The claim of the  complainant appears to  be   not reliable  at all. When   in the initial stage the complainant  has stated that the vehicle has  been damaged  due to fire, in the  later stage he   has stated  damage is  caused  due  to dashing of the  vehicle  against the  iron pillar.

8.       It appears  that there is  no cause  of  action   to file  the case by the  complainant. However Sipun Parida the  driver  has no valid  driving licence to drive a transport vehicle on the date of  accident, for which the  complainant   tried  to  built-up  a case   on false  facts. He has   not  come to this Forum/Commission  in clean hand. For the  aforesaid  reason  the  complainant is  not entitled  to any relief/reliefs.

9. Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be  and the same  is  dismissed  on contest against opp.party No.1 and exparte against opp.party No.2.

[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.