Heard  both the parties, the fact of complaint is that the complainant met an accident on dated.19.09.2019 with his bullet OR 03M672 which was brought by him from the product seller Sreyasri Motors, Ainthapali, Sambalpur who is the product seller.

              On perusal of the record as well as the evidence on record it is found that the complainant did not made the product seller as a necessary party as well as the product manufacturer company as a necessary party to the complaint case as such the complaint case lacking in addition of the necessary party to the case . The complainant mention about the tie up of the insurer with the service provider but failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the same. In Para no 8 and 9 the complainant states the motorcycle was repaired by the service provider i.e. OP no.1 again denied the statement of repairing and admitted the custody of the motorcycle is with him, as such there exist an ambiguity found in the pleading it is the settled principle of law that both the parties are binding by their pleading one cannot go beyond their pleading, in rival OP No.1 vehemently denied any nexus between him and the insurer as per the allegation made against him the OP No.1 is only the service provider to do the needful on instruction of the product manufacturer.

                          From the above facts and circumstances it appears that the complainant wants to take the benefit of both the world. It is trying to be smart, it is the settled principle of law that one cannot take hot and cold in one time. This commission found a smell of malafide intention of the complainant to harrash the OP No.1 in a revengeful way which is not just, proper; reasonable also abused the process of law.

ORDER

                    In view of the aforesaid discussion the case is  dismissed   without any cost.

                                                                      The case is disposed off accordingly.