Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

             The  complainant has presented the  present complaint U/s. 12  of C.P.Act, 1986  for   certain reliefs.

2.       The case of the  complainant is that he has purchased  a truck which  has been assigned with  registration No. OR-05-AB-5521  and  running  the  same  to earn his  livelihood. The opp.parties  are having their  branch office  at Angul,  Talcher  and pursuing their business through   agent  Santosh  Kumar Das.Annexure- 1  is  the copy of the  registration certificate  issued by the competent authority  . The  said  vehicle  was insured with the opp.parties  against the risk of  accident , theft etc. The  policy   issued by the opp.parties  in favour of the  complainant is   having policy No. 163800/31/10/6300007370 which  was valid  from 30.12.2010  to  mid night of  29.12.2011.The  copy  of the said  policy is Annexure- 2. One  Banamali Pradhan  who  was having  valid  Driving  Licence  bearing No.  OR-0519860053740  dtd. 08.10.1986 was  engaged as  the driver by the  complainant  to drive  his vehicle photo copy of Driving Licence is Annexure-3. On 18.09.2011 while  the  said truck was  travelling  towards  Handidhua   from Pabitra Mohan Chhak , it  dashed  against  another  truck bearing Regd. No. OR-19F- 1188 ,as  a  result of  such accident the  front  show  and other   parts of the  engine were damaged. Immediately the  complainant  informed  the local police  about  such  accident  who made station diary  entry No. 460/2011 dtde. 18.09.2011.The  photo  copy  of the  said  station diary entry  is Annexure- 4. .After  receiving  of  information, the opp.parties   deputed a  surveyor, who reached  at the  spot, verified the  vehicle, took some photographs  and  received  all the  relevant  documents  from the  complainant. The  surveyor   advised  the complainant  to remove the  vehicle from the spot for  repairing. The said  vehicle of the  complainant  removed  from the spot  after   due   advise  by the  Branch Manager  of opp.party No.1  and the  surveyor. It  was  brought to a garage situated at  Talcher  with a help  of  crane . The complainant   estimated the  cost of the said  vehicle to be Rs.2,79,840.00  and  submitted  his  claim before the  opp.party No.1, who assured   him to release the said amount. Annexure-5 & 6  are the  estimate.  Inspite of  several approach  the  opp.party No.1  did not settle the claim of the  complainant and assured him to settle the dispute in  due  course of time. From the  month of August, 2013  he  was  approaching  the opp.party No.1  time and  again but  on 16.09.2013  the opp.parties  refused  to release the  claim amount. There is  deficiency in service  provided by the opp.parties. They have  adopted  unfair trade practice. The refusal of the  opp.parties  is quite illegal and  arbitrary. Hence this case.

3.       Notices were issued to opp.party No.1 & 2  through  Regd. Post with A.D. The A.Ds  of opp.party No.1 & 3  are also  available  in the case record. Opp.party No.2  has received the  notice by  hand  on 28.11.2013. So notices were  served on all the opp.parties. On perusal  of the  case record it  appears that  only the opp.party No.2 has appeared  before this  Forum  through his  Learned Counsel  on 26.12.2013 and  filed  show cause on 25.11.2014.

          The  case of the  opp.party No.2  is that the  claim  of the  complainant is  not  maintainable in the eye of  law, the complainant is  not  a consumer and it is bad for  non-joinder and  mis-joinder of  necessary parties. Admittedly the opp.parties  have issued  the  policy to the  complainant. As per the  procedure  , the  insurance company of the opp.parties will engage  a surveyor   for  final survey   after receipt of the  claim form and relevant documents  from the  complainant .In this  case the  complainant  without  submitting  the required  bills  has  filed  this  case. The  bills  are highly essential for  settlement of the  claim. The surveyor  Mr.B.K.Pattanaik  has  assessed the  loss  of the  alleged  truck amounting Rs.62,500.00  after deducting the  depreciation value, policy excess  and  salvage  as per  policy conditions. The estimate  submitted by the  complainant  is  not  equivalent  with  that of  bills .The  opp.party  cannot  settle the claim on such estimate  submitted by the  complainant. On 17.12.2012  the  complainant  was  specifically  directed  for  submission of  bills and   memos. Without  complying the  said  letter  the  complainant  had approached this  forum with  an allegation of  deficiency  in  service by the opp.parties. The opp.party has not  repudiated the  claim. The  complainant has  filed  another  case  bearing No. C.C. No.  89 of  2013  for  the  self same  vehicle, for which this  case is not  maintainable. The  complainant is  not  entitled to  any relief/reliefs.

4.       The parties have  not  adduced  evidence in support of their  case. The   disposal  of the  case   is to be  made  basing   on the complaint petition, written statement   of opp.party No.2,  the  documents filed by the  parties  and  their arguments.

5.       Admittedly the  complainant is   owner of the  truck  bearing  Regd. No. OR-05 AB 5521, having  policy No. 163800/31/10/6300007370 which  was  valid  from 30.12.2010  to mid night   of 29.12.2011. It is also not disputed that on 18.09.2011  the  said  vehicle was  proceeding  towards Handidhua  chhak  from Pabitra Mohan Chhak  which  dashed  against  another  truck bearing No. OR- 19F  1188 . The   photo copy of the station diary entry  shows that on 17/18.09.2011  night at about 1 A.M   the  complainant  reported to police   that  his  vehicle  dashed against  a  truck bearing  Regd. No. OR 19F 1188. The  contents  of the  complaint petition  filed  by the complainant  is supported with the   contents  of the  Station  Diary  Entry. Letter dtd. 23.07.2022 shows that the  complainant  has  submitted  the required  documents to opp.party No.2 who received the same by putting his seal and signature. Admittedly the   complainant  has not  submitted the  bills to the insurer. He has  only   submitted the estimates. Settling  of  claim  basing  on the  estimates is  not  reasonable.

          Opp.party No.2  has  filed  the photo copy of the  Motor  Final survey report  prepared by the Enginer Mr. B.K.Pattanaik  on 08.11.2012. He has reported the  approximate   assessed loss  on   repair  basis  to be Rs.62,500.00. The  said assessment of the  surveyor is  also  an approximate assessment, which may also  change at the  time  of  actual repairing.

          The  complainant  has   submitted the  photo copy of the  estimate  prepared by Maa Hingula Body Builders who deals with  body building, painting, denting   and  electric welding. So taking  into  consideration the  photo copy of the  estimate and  the approximate   loss assessed on repairing  basis, assessed by the  surveyor  and  loss assessor, it will be  just and  proper   to direct the  opp.parties to settle the dispute  on payment  of Rs.1,00,000.00  towards repairing of the  vehicle  of  the  complainant.

6.       Hence ordered :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case  be   and the same  is allowed in part  on contest  against  opp.party No.2  and exparte against  opp.party No.1 & 3. All the opp.parties  are jointly and severally liable. The opp.parties  are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh)  to the  complainant  within  one  month from the date of receipt of  this order, failing which the said  amount will carry  interest @ 12% per annum  till  it  is paid.