State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, The New India ... vs Surya Narayan Patra on 18 July, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK First Appeal No. CDA/344/2005 ( Date of Filing : 15 Mar 2005 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/12/2004 in Case No. CD/47/2002 of District Kandhamal) 1. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bikash Plaza Market, At/Po- Phulbani, Dist- Kandhamal, Sr. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Cuttack. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Surya Narayan Patra S/o- Syambabu Patra, Main Road, Baliguda, Dist- Kandhamal. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER PRESENT: M/s. B.C. Singh & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1 M/s. L. Pradhan & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 18 Jul 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant being owner of a Bus bearing Registration No. OR-05L- 5959 has purchased insurance policy from the OPs covering the period from 27.3.2001 to 26.3.2002. During currency of the policy on 1.9.2001, the vehicle met accident. Therefore, the matter was reported to the insurer who appointed surveyor to survey the vehicle. As per the instruction of the OPs the complainant repaired the vehicle in the garage of M/s Jagannath Body Builders by spending Rs.96,900/-. Besides, the complainant has also paid Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of the damaged Bus. Thereafter, no survey was made. On 9.12.2002, OP No.2 issued a letter to the complainant wherein it was mentioned that at the time of accident, the vehicle was driven by the conductor Susanta Rana who has no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the OPs closed the file as 'No Claim'. So, the complaint was filed.
4. OPs filed written version stating that the vehicle was driven by the conductor of the vehicle who has no valid and effective driving licence. After due investigation, it was found that the conductor was not authorized to drive the said vehicle and as such since he has no valid and effective driving licence, the claim was repudiated. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
"xxx xxx xxx Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion tht the OPs have made deficiency of service. Hence, we direct the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.96,900/- (rupees ninety six thousand nine hundred) only along with interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. dtd. 26.12.2002 till date of payment.
Further we direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment.
Accordingly we allow this dispute and direct the OPs to pay the aforesaid awarded amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not accepting the surveyor's report which is clear to show that the driver was driving the vehicle violating the condition of the policy. He submitted that the driver Bikram Behera was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. However, surveyor has computed the loss. Since the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy the claim was closed as 'No Claim'. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that during currency of the insurance policy the vehicle met accident and the surveyor was deputed to compute the loss. The surveyor's report was not available on record during hearing of the appeal. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant filed the surveyor's report. The report is not clear how they came to know that Susanta Rana, the conductor of the vehicle was driving the Bus. When the driver Bikram Behera has valid and effective driving licence the question of repudiation of claim on the plea that the conductor was driving the Bus at the time of accident is illegal and improper. The compensation of loss assessed by the surveyor is to be considered to settle the claim as per settled law. It appears that total claim of Rs.96,900/- was allowed by the learned District Forum whereas the surveyor computed the loss at Rs.42,500/-. The impugned order does not disclose how learned District Forum have arrived the loss at Rs.96,900/- without considering the loss computed by the surveyor. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order, we modify the impugned order by directing the OPs to pay Rs.42,500/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made within 45 days from today failing which it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till payment is made. Other part of the impugned order remains unaltered. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik] MEMBER