Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Consumer Complaint No. 73 of 2011. Case: Maa Durga Rice Processing and Exports (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberConsumer Complaint No. 73 of 2011
Party NameMaa Durga Rice Processing and Exports (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President), G.P. Sahoo and Smarita Mohanty, Members
IssueConsumer Law
Judgement DateAugust 31, 2015
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Smarita Mohanty, Member

  1. The brief facts of the case of complainant] was that he had purchased one BMW 3 series Car for Rs. 24,40,000/- bearing no OR 04M 005 The vehicle was registered under RTO Chandikhole on 26.5.2010. The said car was insured under O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 Oriental Insurance Company vide policy No 345800/31/2011/1409 for the period from 19.5.2010 to midnight of 18.5.2011 for Rs. 22,80,000/- it was submitted that the said car met with an accident on 6.12.2010 which is within the insurance policy period. The diver of the car lodged an FIR before IIC Tangi Police Station on the date of accident Accordingly one PS case was registered vide no. 177/2010 Complainant also intimated O.Ps. Insurance Company and repairer regarding the accident Both insurer and repairer surveyed the vehicle at the spot Thereafter the said vehicle was shifted to the workshop of O.P. No. 3 at Kolkata for repair Complainant towed the damaged car from Cuttack to Kolkata The repairer demanded Rs. 23,00,000/- towards repairing cost of the said vehicle The repairer opined that the alignment rod cannot be repaired Complainant requested O.P. No. 2 vide letter dated 28.11.2011 to settle the claim on total loss bas is but no action has been taken by OPs Insurance, company He therefore filed this complaint before this Commission and claimed Rs. 32,80,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle as well as towards mental agony and deficiency of service along with litigation cost and future interest @ 12% p.a.

  2. Notice were served on O.P. They appeared through their counsel O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 jointly filed written version whereas O.P. No. 3 did not file any written version.

  3. O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 contended that the complaint petition is not maintainable as he is not a consumer under the Act and there is no deficiency of service on their part and payed for dismissal of the case it submitted that after receiving the intimation regarding the damage of Vehicle by accident one surveyor named Sri Ranjit Kumar Singh was deputed He conducted the inspection in presence of the insured's representative O.Ps. further submitted that complainant was reluctance Repair the said vehicle and insisted to settle the claim on total loss" basis Complainant refused to dismantle the said vehicle The surveyor assessed the loss without dismantling the said vehicle Accordingly the surveyor calculated, the loss without dismantling the said vehicle. The loss was Within 75% of Insured Declared Value...

To continue reading

Request your trial