IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,DHENKANAL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.104/2008
PRESENT: Sri Meenaketan Mahanty,President
Sri S.C.Sahu,Member
Mrs.R.B.Rahaman,Member.
Sarojini Patra,
W/o.Anirudha Patra,aVill-Sahugharpatna,
P.O/P.S-Bhuban,Dist-Dhenkanal. … Complainant
-Vrs.-
1- ;Branch lManager,National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
At-Kunjakanta(N.H.42),Dist-Dhenkanal.
2- Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,At-Hanuman Bazar,
N.H. 42,Angul,PO/Dist-Angul. …Opp.Parties
DATE OF FILING -6.8.2008
DATE OF DISPOSAL-29.4.2009
For the Complainant- Sri D.P.Pattnaik,Sri S.K.Padhy,Sri S.K.Panigrahi,Advocates
For the Opp.Parties – Sri M.R.Pattnaik,Advocate
JUDGMENT DT.29.4.2009
SRI M.K.MAHANTY,PRESIDENT
1- The present consumer complaint was filed on 6.8.08. The case of the complainant is that she is the owner of TATA Truck bearing No.OR-04-D-5495. She was earning her livelihood by engaging the Truck in transport business . On 12.6.07 the vehicle was carrying Iron ore and it met with an accident due to dashing against a Chakunda Tree near Bhusana Chhack. There was heavy damage to the body of the vehicle. The matter was reported at the P.S. The O.P.1 was also informed and a surveyor of O.P.1 came to the spot to investigate the matter . The vehicle was sent to garage for repair and complainant spent Rs.63,570/- towards cost of repair. The D.L. Of the driver and other documents were supplied to the O.P. The matter could not be settled as complainant failed to settle the required documents before office of the O.P.1. So the dispute was filed before this Forum.
2- The O.Ps have filed their joint show cause. It is stated that a Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss of damage. Thus Surveyors are government servants and according to their estimate, the loss was of Rs.87,180/-. It is also stated that loss was Rs.63,570.00 but the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.27,500.00. The insurance company has nothing to do for such loss or damage. The particulars of D.L. were not supplied by the complainant and the D.L. was fake. D.L.No.524/93 was issued by R.T.O.,Sambalpur and D.L. 239/90 was issued by RTO,Bhubaneswar. Hence, the O.Ps closed the case of complainant and repudiated the claim. The original D.L. was fake and the renewal was correct. It is stated by the O.Ps that the subsequent D.L. Becomes fake as original driving licence was fake. The insuran ce company is not liable to pay the cost of damage . It is a violation to the policy condition.
3- In view of the above pleadings, the following are the points for consideration:
POINTS
1- Whether damage of vehicle due to dashing against a Chakunda tree has any corelation with invalid D.L. Of the driver?
2- Is the repudiation of claim by O.Ps caused deficiency of service by O.Ps or O.Ps are entitled to exemption for payment of compensation?
3- To what relief parties are entitled?
FINDINGS
Point No.1- During hearing of this proceeding no witness are examined from the side of any party. Both the parties have relied on their respective documents. The accident was caused due to dashing of the vehicle against a Chakunda tree and according to complainant the Driver had valid Driving licence at the time of accident. Moreover, the policy of insurance was in force at that time of accident. Exbt.1 is the R.C. Book issued for the vehicle. Exbt.2 is the policy of insurance. Exbt.3 is the copy of D.L. No.239/90-91. Exbt.3/a shows that the Driver Nirmal Ch.Swain was authorised to drive light motor vehicle. Exbt.4 series are the receipt towards repairing charges. So it is clear that the vehicle by facing the accident was put into a garage and complainant incurred some expenditure for the repair of such vehicle. The plea of fake D.L.has been taken by the insurance company in their show cause.
Exbt.A is the letter and Exbt.B is the motor claim form. Exbt.D is the particulars of driving licence. Surveyor assessed the loss and furnished the report vide Exbtg.F. According to his calculation the net loss was assessed at Rs.27,500.00. Exbt. G is the Driving Licence . It is brought to the notice of thi8s Forum that the D.L. issued by the R.T.O.,Sambalpur or Bhubaneswar was fake at any point of time. The particulars of D.L. are to be proved by the licensing authority by deputing their staff with relevant register that has not been done in this dispute by the O.Ps. So we can not come to a conclusion that the D.L. In question was fake.
Point No.2- The complainant being the holder of the policy has applied to get the compensation for the loss or damage. It is also stated by the O.Ps that D.L. was issued to a fake person. It is not understood as to how a person or a driver becomes fake when accident took place or matter was reported at the Police station. On the whole the plea taken by the insurance company is not accepted. According to O.Ps the D.L was fake and the person to whom such D.L. was issued was also fake. The written argument submitted by the O.Ps is devoid of any merit. The complainant is entitled to get compensation but by deputing a surveyor the O.Ps repudiated the claim and complainant sustained financial loss by holding comprehensive policy. It includes the damage of vehicle and and the insurance company is to pay the cost of damage even by accepting the amount calculated by Surveyor in the report Exbt.-F.. the refusal of the O.Ps amount to deficiency of service within the meaning of Sec.2(i)(g) of C.P.Act .
Point No.3 – The O.Ps have cited decisions of Apex Court but it is not applicable to the case at hand. This is not the case of fake driving licence of the driver but O.Ps have taken such plea in order to avoid payment. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that what ever calculation has been made by the Surveyor in their report Exbt.F is payable to the complainant. Further the O.Ps are to pay compensation of Rs.10,000.00(Rupees ten thousand) for their deficiency of service. Therefore, the O.Ps are to pay a sum of Rs.27,500.00 towards cost of damage of the vehicle and Rs.10,000.00 compensation for their deficiency of service to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs.37,500.00 The Opp.Parties are to pay the same within 3 months from the date of this order. Points are all answered. Hence, it is ordered.
O R D E R
That,m the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.Ps without cost. The O.Ps are to pay compensation of Rs.10,000.00 for their deficiency of service and Rs.27,500.00 towards cost of damage of the vehicle. They are to pay total sum of Rs.37,500.00 to the complainant within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to pay their own cost through out.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29th day of April,2009.
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT