IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:SUNDARGARH-I
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.56/2009.
Amrita Mishra,
D/o: Nigamananda Mishra,
At; Block colony, Qr.No.No.2,
Po/Ps/Dist: Sundargarh,Orissa. ………………………..Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Sundargarh Branch Office,
At/po/Dist: Sundargarh, Orissa………………………………Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the parties:-
For the Complainant Sri S.S.Mishra,Adv.& Ors.
For the Opp .Parties Sri A.K.Sahoo, Adv. & Ors.
O R D E R Dated : 06.08.09
Md. Inclab Ummar, President:-
Deficiency in service is the complaint of the complainant.
1. In brief the case of the complainant is that she is the Regd. Owner of Truck bearing No. OR WB-7226 duly insured by the O.P vide policy No. 55050231080-100000120. The said vehicle met with an accident on 17.09.2008 at Raigarh and for that one GR Case has been registered in Mungse Police station vide Case no. 218/2008 dt. 17.09.2008 which was also intimated to the O.P.
On dt. 24.09.2008 after the vehicle was dis-mentaled by Ma Sameleswari Body Builders furnished charges of repairing amounting to Rs.74,000/-. The O.P. Deputed their Surveyor who after inspection submitted its report. The complainant received a letter from the O.P on dt. 27.01.2009 that the driving license of the driver was not valid on the date of accident and intimated to repudiate the claim if no response is not received within 7 days. The complainant then inquired about the
-1-
genuineness of the license from the issuing authority the DTO Ranchi and it was found that the license was valid up to 07.07.09 which was issued in the name of driver and the certified copy was submitted before the O.P.
The accident occurred on 17.09.2008 and on that date the policy and driving license was valid, and the compliance were made by the complainant and finally on 03.03.2009 the clarification was given still the O.P is silent in the matter of settlement of the claim of the complainant in spite of her repeated request for which the complainant has filed this dispute case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P. to pay Rs.74,000/- for the repairing charges of the accident vehicle ,Rs.10,000/- towards expenses in Ranchi to get the certified copy Rs.30,000/- as mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,50,000/- for detaining the vehicle and not plying the vehicle.
The complainant has submitted the following documents in support of his case.
1. Annexture A/1 is the xerox copy of letter dtd.27.01.09 from the O.P. To the complainant.
2.Annexture A/2 is the xerox copy of FIR dt.27.07.2009.
3. Annexture A/3 is the xerox copy of letter dt. 10.02.2009 from the complainant to the O.p.
4. Annexture A/4 is the xerox copy of letter dt. 10.02.2009 from the complainant to the O.p.
5. Annexture A/5 is the xerox copy of bill of Maa sameleswari Body Building,sundargarh.
6. Annexture A/6 is the xerox copy of letter dt. 24.09.2008 from the complainant to the O.p.
7. Annexture A/ is the xerox copy of certified copy of driving license of the driver.
2. The O.P. appeared through his learned advocate and filed the written version wherein it has been submitted that the vehicle in question was met with an accident on 17.09.08 and it was repaired in Maa Sameleswari Body builders and the repair estimate submitted for Rs.74,000/- (Rupees seventy four thousand) only is quite exorbitant
-2-
rather the surveyor of the O.P company accessed the repairing charge to the 49,800/-.
It has further submitted that the license of the Driver Bharat Sha was verified from licensing authority Ranchi,Jharkhand in which it was mentioned that the driver was authorised to drive LMV and HMV only and the said license was valid up to 10.06.2006. after obtaining the said D.L the O.P company on 27.11.2009 intimated the complaint regarding the D.L of the driver was not valid on the date of accident and intended to repudiate the claim if no response is received within 7 days. After lapse of one month 6 days the complainant submitted a certified copy of the driving license of the driver valid up to 07.07.2009 which is fake and fictitious which is not genuine one and prayed for the dismissal of the case there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The O.P. has submitted the following documents in support of his case.
1. Annexture B/1 is the xerox copy of license issued by DTO,Ranchi.
2. Annexture B/2 is the xerox copy of letter dt. 21.01.09 from Divisional manager to the O.p.
3. Annexture B/3 is the xerox copy of dt. 18.11.08 the Surveyor Report.
4. Annexture B/4 is the xerox copy of letter dt. 16.03.2009 from the O.p. To DTO,Ranchi.
3. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties and we have gone through the case in detail and perused the documents as filed by the parties.
On dt. 22.07.2009 the case was fixed for hearing and both the parties were present and the learned advocate appearing for the parties argued the case in their support and with the consent of both the parties the case was put up on Lok Adalat on 25.07.2009 but the instant dispute case was not disposed of in the Lok Adalat as the O.P only agreed to pay the claim amount on the basis of Surveyor report which was not agreed by the complainant.
However We accept the certified copy of the driving license as submitted by the complainant issued by the Dist.Transport Officer,Ranchi,Jharkhand as it was not disputed by the Op. and agreed to take up the case in Lok Adalat for settlement.
-3-
After perusing the documents we are satisfied that the complainant has spent Rs.74,000/- for repairing of her vehicle which the O.P is liable to pay.
4. Thus under the circumstances we direct the O.P. Branch manager
to pay Rs.74,000/- (Rupees seventy four thousand) only as repairing charge of the accident vehicle of the complainant. The O.P is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry 12% ( Twelve percent) interest per annum from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Complainant is allowed.
Md. Inclab Ummar
1. S. Patel, lady Member, I Agree. President
2.S.Choudhury, Member, I Agree.