Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.

THIS is an original complaint case claiming Rs. 6,75,000/- against the Insurance Company towards compensation, cost of repair, mental agony, interest and cost of litigation etc.

THE matter having been admitted, notice was issued and show-cause have been filed. According to the complainant''s case he had insured his Rajdoot Yamaha motor cycle bearing No. OR-02-5552 with the opposite party vide policy No. 384/89356. THE insurance was valid from 17.8.1994 to 16.8.1995. On 22.9.1994 the said motor cycle while was parked near Qr. No. E/A-73, Bargarh Brit Colony was stolen away by unknown person. A police case was registered immediately on the same day. THE police investigated the matter and recovered the stolen motor cycle on 20.10.1994. THE complainants thereafter made several requests to the Insurance Company for the payment of the amount insured against the vehicle but there was no response from the side of the Insurance Company. Hence the C.D. Case. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides who have extensively argued their respective cases. We have perused the documents on record.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact of theft and the fact of insurance being valid on the date of theft. Insurance policy being valid in between the dates, 17.8.1994 to 16.8.1995, it is also not disputed that the alleged motor cycle was insured with the Insurance Company covering a risk for the period from 17.8.1994 to 16.8.1995. The complainant submitted a claim form which showed repair of the motor cycle after recovery and cost of repairs were supported by vouchers placed in the record. Mr. S. Sarangi learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contested the case on various legal and factual aspects. Mr. Sarangi vehemently argued and submitted that the damage caused to the vehicle would be anything more than Rs. 4,860/- which is based on the report of the Surveyor who on the basis of the market value, assessed the net loss.

ACCORDINGLY the opposite party issued discharge voucher for Rs. 4,860/- but the complainant did not accept it and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. On perusal of the record we find that the complainant submitted two proforma bills totalling to Rs. 12,706.35 of M/s. Utkal Automobiles Ltd., Bhubaneswar and M/s. Rakhee Auto Works, Bhubaneswar relating to estimate of repairs amounting to Rs. 12,706.35 but actually on perusal of the record show that the complainant has submitted vouchers amounting to Rs. 11,974/- relating to repairs and the same are placed in the record. Mr. Sarangi on behalf of the Insurance Company strongly challenged the correctness of the above vouchers on the ground that the complainant fitted extra items in the motor cycle over and above the damage parts. We are unable to accept these contentions of Mr. Sarangi because no cogent reason has been given as to why defects were not attended to in time. Further, the discharge voucher worth of Rs. 4,860/- issued by the Insurance Company does show it was in "full and final settlement" of the claim, but the facts and circumstances noticed by us clearly establish that the complainant under a forceful circumstance agreed to sign the voucher. So, both on facts and law the Insurance Company stands no where.

ALL these above discussions indicate total inaction on the part of the Insurance Company in not satisfying the claim under the policy. There is not a scrap of paper from the side of the Insurance Company to satisfy this Court that in fact the complainant has no case or there is any other special reasons for which the claim should be disallowed. On the basis of the materials on record we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his case and thus is entitled to the relief of Rs. 11,974/- claimed minus depreciation of Rs. 1,197/- (@ 10%). Accordingly, we allow this complaint petition and direct the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 10,004/- covered under the policy or if any amount already already paid be adjusted from the sum assured. In all fairness, no compensation and interest are allowed by us as the complainant is using the motor cycle till now i.e., since 20.10.1994 and it is settled law that compensation on this score should be quantified on rational basis as per materials produced by the complainant, and to the extent to which monetary loss has been caused. However a sum of Rs. 500/- is allowed towards the cost of proceedings. The Insurance Company should satisfy this within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. This order be communicated immediately to the opposite parties as well as to the complainant. In this case, there is no adequate materials to quantify the compensation for mental agony and harassment. Hence this part of the claim is disallowed. The appeal is allowed in part. Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President-I agree. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Complaint partly allowed.