Date of filing:- 26/05/2020.
Date of Order:-30/07/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 42 of 2020.
Rahul Kumar Agrawal, aged about 27(twenty seven) years, son of Shyam Sundar Agrawal, resident of vill-Mansa Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., At. Railway Station Road, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. represented through its Legal Manager, At-Budharaja main road, Railway over bridge, Po. Budharaja, Ps/Dist. Sambalpur Pin-768004. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri J. Sarangi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.30/07/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd No. OD-21B-2223 (JCB 3DX BACKHOE LOADER). The vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Opposite Party vide Police No.I-QDO87LP P400 POLICY NO MO549458 for the period from 09-04-2018 to 08-04-2019 with IDV of ₹ 13,00,000/-(Rupees thirteen lakh)only and a sum of ₹ 21,651.23/-(Rupees twenty one thousand six hundred fifty one and twenty three paise) had also been paid towards premium. The insured vehicle got extensively damaged by fire set to it by an unlawful mob on 19-06-2018 while the vehicle was in the parking condition inside the base camp of the Complainant near village Petupali on Biju Express Highway and the damage was so extensive that it became irrepairable and the JCB was turned into a scrap of iron i.e. total loss. The said incident was also reported to Melchhamunda Police vide P.S. Case No.70 Dt.19-06-2018. The Complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party immediately and also supplied all the desired documents with a request to process the claim for payment. The claim was registered as I-SB5VZXT on 21-06-2018 by the Opposite Party and two surveyors namely Narayan Purohit and R. N. Tripathy deputed by the company examined the damaged insured vehicle. Though the Complainant approached several times, the Opposite Party remained silent and finally offered a sum of ₹6,54,000/-(Rupees six lakh fifty four thousand)only which is 50% of the IDV with an under delay which was communicated over phone on the ground that the vehicle was having no permit at the time of accident. The insured vehicle was in parking condition at the time of accident and the vehicle comes under the category of non-transport vehicle, no permit is required for the same. Therefore the Complainant denied the offer of the Opposite Party and demanded total IDV of the policy i.e. ₹ 13,00,000/- to which the Opposite Party remained silent. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that the vehicle of the Complainant or insured Rahul Kumar Agrawal bearing registration No. OD-21B-2223 was insured by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submitted that after getting information about the accident of the insured vehicle the Opposite Party deputed surveyor to survey the vehicle and thereby it was found that the alleged vehicle is had no valid permit at the time of accident and accordingly the Opposite Party informed the Complainant through letters dated 20-12-2018 and 22-12-2018 and also severed times over phones to provide the permit of the alleged vehicle to process the claim but it was vain. The Complainant gave deaf ears to the call of the Opposite Party and as such the Opposite Party could not keep the claim open for an indefinite period of time and having no option closed the claim file permanently as No Claim and intimated the matter to the Complainant vide letter dated 03-01-2019. Due to the latches and non-cooperative attitude of the Complainant claim of the Complainant could not be materialized. Hence the Opposite Party is no way deficient in service.
3) Perused of complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) The policy is admitted, the incident is admitted and during the currency of the policy the incident occurred. The only ground of repudiation is that the vehicle had no permit at the time of accident. As per the submission of the Complainant the vehicle comes under the category of non-transport vehicle. Hence no permit is required for the vehicle. As per Motor vehicle Act 1988, permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. As per Section 66 of M.V. Act, 1988 permit must requires for transport vehicles. In the case of Mukund Dewangan Vrs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that JCB is a construction equipment and is considered as a non-transport vehicle. In the present case the insured vehicle was a JCB 3DX Backhoe loader. As the vehicle is a non transport vehicle there is no need of permit. Section 66 M.V.Act specifically says that permit is necessary for transport vehicle. Hence the repudiation of claim on the ground that the vehicle has no permit is illegal. The Opposite Party is deficient in service for non settlement of claim of the Complainant. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
5) For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
6) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 13,00,000/-(Rupees lakh fifty eight thousand one hundred forty seven)only i.e. IDV of the vehicle along with 7%(seven percent) interest per annum from date of repudiation i.e. from 03-01-2019 till date of this Order to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay ₹ 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only compensation for deficiency in service and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of July 2024.
Supply free copies to the Parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
