Date of filing:- 02/05/2019.
Date of Order:-14/05/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 20 of 2019.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal son of Ganesh Ram Agrawal, aged about 40(forty) years, Occupation- Transport business, resident of Ward No. 05, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. represented through its Branch Manager, Bargarh
Branch, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri J.Sarangi, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri P.K.Mohapatra, 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.14/05/2024. -: 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 motor vehicle Turbo Truck bearing No. OR-17-J-4236 (Tata LPT 1109). The Complainant earns his livelihood by using the vehicle. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with the Opposite Party vide Policy No. 345601/31/2017/5983 covering from the period from dated 16-03-2017 to 15-03-2018. A sum of ₹23,798/-(Rupees twenty three thousand seven hundred ninety eight)only was paid towards premium and the IDV of the vehicle is ₹6,30,000/-(Rupees six lakh thirty thousand)only. On 13-04-2017 while the said insured motor vehicle was parked near Ashirbad Petrol Pump at villlage Kendpali under Bargarh Sadar P.S., one unknown vehicle came from wrong side and dashed against front side of the motor vehicle. The fact of accident was intimated to Opposite Party so also reported to concern Police Station. The Complainant lodged a claim with the Opposite Party and submitted all the desired documents like copy of F.I.R., Insurance Policy, Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Driving License of the driver who was driving the vehicle. The Opposite Party processed the claim and advised the Complainant for production of vehicle before authorised agency Laxmi Sales and Service Centre. The service centre estimated the cost of repair ₹ 14,86,255/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eighty six thousand two hundred fifty five)only on predismantle condition. The Opposite Party deputed surveyor who assessed the loss of the vehicle after deduction of depreciation salvage value, compulsory excess and 25%(twenty five percent) non standard basis in absence of permit which comes to ₹3,00,613/-(Rupees three lakh six hundred thirteen)only. The estimate had given by the surveyor without application of mind and a biased report. The Opposite Party took advantage of lack of technical knowledge regarding loss assessment and procedure and persuaded the Complainant for settlement advised net repair basis and pressurized to dismantle the vehicle. The cost of repair after dismantle of vehicle naturally exceed than predismantle estimate. The Complainant therefore did not agree to dismantle it and want to get the cash payable to him on the accident. The Opposite Party did not attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlement of claim of the petitioner. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Party is that the Opposite Party Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed its version. The Opposite Party admitted that one package policy for Goods carrying commercial vehicle was issued by the Opposite Party bearing Policy No. 345601/31/2017/5983 in respect of Tata LPT Turbo Truck Vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-J-4236 owned by the Complainant and the policy was valid from 16-03-2017 to 15-03-2018. After getting intimation about the accident of the vehicle, the Opposite Party carried out all the formalities required for settlement of the claim and instructed the Complainant to submit all relevant document for verification. The Opposite Party deputed independent qualified IRDA licensed Surveyor Er. Dhirendra Kumar Dash to conduct spot survey to ascertain the actual damages of the vehicle, Er. Sudam Chandra Panda to finally assess the damages and loss of the vehicle and also deputed Surendra Kumar Panda, Advocate to collect document and conduct verification driving license of the driver. The Opposite Party vide its letters Dt.18-04-2017, Dt. 01-06-2017 and Dt.26-07-2017 requested the Complainant to comply with submission of required documents within 7(seven) days for early settlement. The Complainant received the letters but did not comply for a considerable period and on 15-09-2017 submitted only one estimate of repair of the vehicle Dt.19-08-2017 issued by Laxmi Sales and Service, Bargarh for ₹14,86,255/-(Rupees fourteen lakh eighty six thousand two hundred fifty five)only. The Opposite Party received final Survey report dt. 20-12-2017 from Surveyor Er. Sudam Chandra Panda. The Surveyor has assessed the gross loss due to accident at ₹4,29,550/-(Rupees four lakh twenty nine thousand five hundred fifty)only and after deduction of policy excess plus approximate salvage value of ₹21,550/-(Rupees twenty one thousand five hundred fifty)only computed the net loss at ₹4,08,000/-(Rupees four lakh eight hundred)only. Since the Complainant failed to provide valid and effective Route Permit of the vehicle the surveyor recommended for settlement of the claim on non-standard basis after deduction of 25%(twenty five percent) of the gross loss assessed at ₹3,00,613/-(Rupees three lakh six hundred thirteen)only in total. The Opposite Party requested the Complainant to dismantle and repair the vehicle and submit receipted bills for settlement of the claim. But the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to settle the claim on total loss basis for the sum assured amount of ₹6,30,000/-(Rupees six lakh thirty thousand)only. As the claim was not admissible to settle on total loss basis as per terms of the policy, the Opposite Party served letter dt.20-11-2018 requesting the Complainant once again to dismantle the vehicle and get it repaired within 7(seven) days and submit bills of repairing. In spite of the reminder the Complainant did not comply with the requirements as has been requested for by the Opposite Party which are highly necessary to dispose of the claim of the Complainant and as such the Opposite Party can not be held responsible for any deficiency in service. The non settlement of the claim was due to non compliance by the Complainant and not due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. After observing all the required paraphernalia, considering all relevant facts and circumstances and with due application of mind the Opposite Party has arrived at the conclusion to close the claim file of the Complainant as “No Claim” due to non compliance of the requirement by the Complainant which can not attribute any deficiency in service in any manner.
3) Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Party is deficient in service ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) The policy is admitted and the accident was occurred during the currency of the policy. The Complainant filed documents like insurance paper, police paper, claim form and estimate of the vehicle. When the policy is admitted and the accident occurred during currency of the policy, it was the duty of the Opposite Party to settle the claim of the Complainant. In Gurmel Singh Vrs Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 407 of 2022) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once there was a valid insurance on payment of huge sum by way of premium and the truck was stolen, the insurance company ought not to have become too technical and ought not to have refused to settle the claim on non submission of the duplicate certified copy certificate of registration which the applicant could not produce due to the circumstances beyond his control. In this present case the Opposite Party is taking plea that instead of reminders the Complainant did not respond. When the surveyor assessed the loss, there is no need of any documents. The Opposite Party should settle the claim as per surveyor report. But the Opposite Party did not settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
5) For deficiency in service the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The Complainant has not filed Route Permit Certificate. As per surveyor report the claim should be settled on non standard basis at ₹3,00,613/-(Rupees three lakh six hundred thirteen)only. 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 ₹3,00,613/-(Rupees three lakh six hundred thirteen)only 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 amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th day of May 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).
