DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KEONJJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 5 OF 2019
Ajay kumar Prusty, aged about 34 years
Son of late kalandi charan Prusty of vill-Salapada,
p.o-Salapada,p.s-Ghasipura,dist-Keonjhar.
At present-vill-Hudi sahi,P.O-P.S-Joda.
District-Keonjhar.……………….………….…………...…..… Complainant
Versus
1. Cholamandalam MS Insurance Co Ltd.
Registered and head office-At.Dare house 2nd floor,
No 2.HSC Bose Road.Chennai-6000011.
2. Zonal Manager,
Cholamandalam MS Insurance Co Ltd.
11 floor, 45/46,Hotel Basera,Ashok Nagar Janpath
,Bhubaneswar,odisha pin-751009.
3.Branch manager
Cholamandalam MS Insurance Co Ltd.
Keonjhar branch.At mining road(Near ICICI bank,Keonjjhar)
PO-Keonjhargarh,p.s-Town,Dist-Keonjhar
4.Indusind Bank Keonjhar Branch,
At-D.D College chhaka,P.o-Keonjhargarh,
District-Keonjhar.…………………………………………………… Opp.Parties
Sri B.N.Patra,President
Sri. B.B.Das,Member
Advocate for complainant-B.B Pradhan, and Associate
Advocate for O.Ps 1,2,&3 - P.K Pothal
Advocate for Op-4-Set exparte
Date of filing- 20.02.2019 Date of order- 03.09.2022
Sri B.N Patra (President)
Brief Facts of the case is that the complainant is the registered owner of a car bearing No-OD-09-C2498, having valid insurance bearing policy No-33621/01280741/000/01 of cholmandalam MS Insurance Co.Ltd. The validity period was from10.12.2017 to 9.12.2018.The said car met with an accident on 10.04.2018 at village kempasoda, the complainant reported the matter of accident and damage of vehicle to the Op Party vide complainant No-3362383710 but Op did not take any action and it is clearly a deficiency of service by Ops. The vehicle financed by Indusind Bank, Keonjhar Branch. Due to such non-corporation of Op Parties the complainant suffered financially of Rs 600000/- and 100000/- for mental agony.
In the above complaint the case is admitted, notice issued to Op Parties.In this case Op-1,2 & 3 entered appearance and submitted written version Op-4 did not appeared, So he was set-ex-parte.
In the above case the complainant relies upon the following documents.
1.Xerox copy of Insurance policy.
2.Xerox copy of Regd certificate of vehicle No-OD-09-C-2498
3.Xerox copy of smart card.
4.Xerox copy of GR Case No 513/18,Sadar ps-case No-48/18
5.Downloaded copy from court website bearing MACT case No 144/18
6.Downloaded copy from e courts website of MACT case No -145/2018
On the other hand Op-Cholamandalam GIC-Filed following documents
1.Letter Dtd 15.5.2018 to complainant
2.Letter Dtd 25.06.2018 to complainant
3.Letter dtd-16.07.2018
4. Investigating report of Investigator
5.Surveyor report
6.Policy certificate
7. Motor Insurance Claim form.
8.CRM Motor claim investigator(OD/Total )
In this case the learned Advocate from complainant side submitted that due to waist pain,the complainant could not filed claim and plea of over loading person is not true. The case is within the jurisdiction of this commission. The Insurance Company knowingly not paying the claim and doing deficiency of service and act of negligence.
On the other hand the Insurance company i.e Advocate of Op Party submitted that there is no cause of action to bring this case. The case is bad for mis-joinder as well as non-joinder of necessary party. There is 28days delay from the date of accident. There were 9(nine) passengers travelling in the car. So Claim was repudiated.
Before deciding the case it is necessary to frame the following issues for discussion and passing order.
1. whether the case is maintainable or not ?
2.Whether case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
3.Whether defiency of service is made by Ops?
4. Whether Investigation report and surveyor report. will be taken into consideration?
5. what relief will be granted to complainant?
6. Whether Policy condition is violated by complainant?
All the issues are discussed jointly to decide the matter in issues.
It is no doubt that the complainant is resident of keonjhar and occurrence of accident took place at kempasoda, sadar block, keonjhar . Op Company has Branch office at keonjhar. There is no dispute regarding jurisdiction.
Both parties argued at length in support of their case. It is found that the vehicle in question was duly insured before the Op company and policy period was valid during the time of accident.FIR was lodged before the Sadar police station keonjhar.
The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on two grounds(1) over loaded passenger(2) Delay in intimating the company Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a good decision regarding delay in intimation in Jaina Construction Company vrs Oriental Insurance Company in civil appeal No-1069/2022 in para-20 observed that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of that cannot be ground to delay the claim of insured.
In the present case delay in intimating about the accident before company canot be sustainable ground as per above decision.
The complainant in claim intimation has mentioned that the date of accident was on 6.5.2018. In order to avoid delay .But it is admitted, that FIR was lodged in 10.04.2018 of 6.15P.M by ASI of police in patrolling duty.FIR is a document one can not go behind it. So mere entry in claim intimation wrongly about incident date can not be ground in this case. Intimation date is blank which was filed by Op.
One surveyor was appointed to investigate the case by company who has submitted its report where he replied the net liability of insure of Rs 6,28,026/-.The complainant has prayed claim amount Rs 700000/-
One important condition raised by insurance company Advocate that about 9 persons were travelling in the car, but the sitting capacity is only 5. Due to over load passenger he cannot get Claim but complainant denied it. The Ld Advocate for complainant has filed two documents of National leval Lok Adalat held at keonjhar on dtd 08.12.2018 where the respondent/Op company has compromised the MAC No144/2018 in the same accident case and MAC-145/2018 and agreed to pay compensations claim amount to the complainant Rajesh khan and laxmi karua. It is no doubt that the insurance company has suppressed this fact. And the Ops has made deficiency in service.
On verification of Insurance policy it is found that the ID value of vehicle is Rs/-6,29,026 on the date policy. As per terms and conditions of the policy the claim value might where against be reduced considering the valuation of question but in the peculiar circumstance of the case and the observations of the authority filed by complainant the complainant is entitled to receive 75% of the claim on non standard basis i.e Rs 5,25,000/- of claim amount 7,00,000/-.
Order
Hence ordered that the Opp Parties shall pay a sum of Rs 5,25,000 and Rs 50,000 towards mental harassment and cost of litigation within one month of receiving this order. If failed the complainant is at liberty to realise the entire amount i.e Rs(5,25,000+50,000)= 5,75.000/-in total at the rate of 6% interest P.A from the date of judgement till final realization.
The order pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 3rd September 2022.
Free copy be supplied to parties, if applied for.
Pronounced on 03.09.2022
I agree
( Sri B. B. Das) ( B.N Patra )
Member (President)
DCDRC,Keonjhar DCDRC,Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by
( Sri B. N. Patra)
President
DCDRC,Keonjhar
