,l STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA. CUTTACK FirsjlAppeal No.398/2008 (From an order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak in Consumer Complaint No. 2812007)

1- The Branch Manageg National Insurance Co.Ltd., Balasore Branch, Office-Vinayakunj,Hospital Road, Balasore-75 600 I , Now Represented through its Officer Incharge for National Insurance Co. Ltd., Odisha Legal Cell, Cantonment Road, Cuttack-1.

Appellant Versus-

l-

SK Mustaque Hossain, S/o.Late SK Shamshsaair Ali, Vill-Kantabania, PO/PS/Dist-Bhadrak. r

2-

The Branch Manager, Shrachi Infrastructure Finance Ltd.,33 6 Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar,Odisha.

Respondents Counsel for the Appellant- Sri Surath Roy& Associates.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 - U.R.Jena & Associates.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2- Sri T.I(.Harichandan & Associates :-

PRESENT Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Member.

Miss S.L. Pattnaik, Member.

DATE OF HEARING.3O. 09. 2022 DATE OF ORDER. 30.09.2022 ('t ORDER Learned counsel for the Appellant is present. Respondents are abent.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

This appeal arises out of the order passed on dated 05.02.2008 by leamed District Forum, Bhadrak in C.D.Case No. 2812007.

The case of the .o-piuinant in short is that the complainant had purchased one Mahindra Savari vehicle to earn for his livelihood. The said vehicle was insured with the Opp.Party No.l for a sum assured of Rs.3,78,871/- which was valid from 29.10.2004 to 28.10.2005. On 16.7.2005, at 3.00 P.M unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident as a result which, the vehicle was damaged. After the acident, the complainant intimated the fact to Opp.Parties. Opp.Party No.1 appointed three numbers of Serveyors at different times to survey and assess the loss of the vehicle.

but Subsequently, the complainant submitted the claim application, the Opp.Party No.2 vide its letter dated 1.11.2006 intimated the complainant regarding repudiation of the claim due to want of route permit. For such illegal repudiation, the complainant filed the complaint before the learned District Forum below for proper redressal.

The opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that after receipt of intimation of damage of the insured vehicle, Surveyor and Loss t"3 Assesssor Er. Manas Kumar Mishra was appointed who conducted survey of , ^{the accident vehicle. Thereafter, final surveyor Er. S.R.Sarangi was} appointed who surveyed and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,05,0251- after depreciation and deduction of salvage value taking into consideraion on repairing basis. Subsequently, the complainant was requested to submit relevant documents for settlement of claim. The complainant was also , ^{requested by O.P No.l to intimate whether the repairing works had been}

completed and if so, to submit the bills/cash memos towards replacement of parts and labour charges and to intimate where the vehicle would be available for inspection by their surveyor for settlement of claim. Again Er. S.R.Sarangi was deputed to assess the loss on cash loss basis. Er. S.R.Sarangi on c9.3.2006 submitted the report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.80,856.25. On 13.3.2006, complainant issued legal notice to the O.Ps for settlement of claim and in reply the O.Ps requested the complainant to submit copies of the F.I.R., originals of D.L and route permit for verification. The complainant in its letter dt.25.9.2006 expressed his inability to submit the route permit. The O.P No.1 examined the documents and on verification of documents it is revealed that the vehicle was plying without route permit in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as required under Sub-section-3 of Sec.66 of the M.V.Act,l988 and accordingy the claim

was repudiated.

The Opp.Party No.2 was set exparte due to non-filing of written

version.

The leaned Forum below after hearing the case ^{passed the} impugned order directing the O.P No.l to pay Rs.80,856.25 to ^the complainant as