PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 124/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Sayad Aslam, aged about 32 years,

S/O- Sayad Afroj,

R/O-Nuapada, Ward No. 11

PO/Ps/Dist-Bargarh, Odisha.                                                    ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. G.N. Autonation (Owner of Show Room)

R/O- Plot No. 1708/6786, Larping, Remed, PO-Remed,

Dist-Sambalpur.

2. IFFCO, TOKIO General Insurance Company (Claim Manager),

R/O-Budharaja, Sambalpur, Ps/Tahl/Dist-Sambalpur………….Opp. Parties.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. S.Bhanja & Associates
2. For the O.P.No.1                :- Sri. D.Mishra & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2                :- Sri. B. K.Purohit

Date of Filing:06.04.2024,  Date of Hearing :10.09.2024,  Date of Judgement :11:11.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased Mahindra Pick-up bearing No. Od-17Y-2927 from O.P.No.1 and insured the vehicle with O.P.No.2. On 31.03.2023 the vehicle met an accident at Bamur, Angul. The vehicle was handed over to O.P.No.1 on the same day at his own cost. The O.P.No.2 was informed but it delayed more than 8 months. The O.P.No.1 without repairing demanded Rs. 200/- per day with 3 % interest which is more than Rs. 69.673/-. The O.P.No.2 on 28.08.2023 rejected the claim. The Complainant filed an affidavit before O.P.No.2 for return of the damaged vehicle. For non-repairing the Complainant sustained loss of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. Parts of the vehicle has been removed. A pleader notice was given on 02.03.2024 but the O.Ps remained silent. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.
2. The O.P.No.1 in reply submitted that on 03.04.2023 an estimate of Rs. 7,22,465/- was given. After survey of the vehicle the O.P.No.1 has to estimate the vehicle and after approval issue the actual estimate and start the work. The O.P.No.2 has not given any approval to start the repair work.

The complaint was requested several time to remove the vehicle as it was lying in stock yard more than 15 months. The Complainant not mentioned the missing parts of the vehicle in pleader notice. The other allegations are denied.

3. The O.P.No.2, insurer in reply submitted that the Bolero Pick-up vehicle has been insured under Goods carrying vehicle package policy of insurance for the period 04.05.2022 to 03.05.2023. When claim for the accident vehicle made surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss as total loss” and the insurer is to pay the total loss subject to standard deduction. The Complainant was requested to submit the cancellation of registration but the Complainant not submitted as a result ultimately the claim was closed and informed.

As per section 55 of the Motor vehicle Act, if a motor vehicle is destroyed the owner shall report the registering authority within 14 days.

There is no deficiency on the part of the answering O.P. and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. The allegation of the Complainant is that after accident on 31.03.2023 vehicle was handed over to O.P. No.1 at his own cost and claim was filed before O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 not settled the claim for more than 8 months and the O.P.No.1 is claiming the detention charges of Rs. 69,673/-. On 28.08.2023 the O.P.No.2 refused the claim. The Complainant submitted an affidavit before the insurer for return of the vehicle. The Complainant challenged that demand of O.P. No.1 is illegal to-wards detention of vehicle charges and alleged deficiency in service of O.P.No2 for non-settlement of the claim.
5. The O.P.No.2 categorically mentioned that the damage of the vehicle is a “total loss” and accordingly the Complainant was informed to submit the cancellation of registration certificate of the vehicle. Total loss was declared by the valuer and loss-assessor. The complainant till date not submitted the cancellation certificate issued by the registering authority for which the O.P. No.2 was compelled to close the claim. From the contention of the parties it is clear that the Complainant not followed the procedures prescribed u/s 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Unless the cancellation certificate of registration is not submitted the O.P.No.2 can not settle the claim.

Relating to claim of O.P.No.1 as the Complainant kept the vehicle for repairing without consent of O.P.No.2 vehicle can not be repaired. The claim of the O.P.No.1 is proper which is to be borne by the Complainant.

6. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case there is no any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. As the Complainant not followed due procedures for which the claim has not been settled by the O.P.No.2.

In such circumstances following order is passed:

ORDER

The Complainant has not followed due procedures under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act. and accordingly the Complainant is at liberty to submit the cancellation registration certificate of the vehicle within one month of this order before O.P.No.2. In the event of submission of certificate of cancellation the O.P.No.2 shall settle the claim as “total loss” after standard deduction. With this observation the complaint is closed. There is no deficiency on the part of O.Ps established. No cost and compensation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11^th day of Nov. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.