Pitambar Behera - Complainant(s)


General Manager, Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Kumar Pani

08 Jun 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/28/2022
( Date of Filing : 31 May 2022 )
1. Pitambar Behera
At-Qtr. No.C.C.A-57, C.I.S.F. colony,Nalco Nagar, P.O-Nalco Nagar,Dist.-Angul(Odisha)-759145
1. General Manager, Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Near CPP Chowk,Kulad, P.O/P.S-Nalco Nagar, Dist.-Angul,Odisha-759145
2. Manager,Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. , Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Near CPP Chowk, Kulad, P.O/P.S-Nalco Nagar,Dist.-Angul,Odisha-759145
3. Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,New Delhi-110070
4. The Branch Manager (Representing for) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Angul Branch
At-Daily Market,Angul, P.O/Dist.-Angul,Odisha-759122.
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
Dated : 08 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This  is  a  complaint  filed by the  complainant  U/s. 35  of C.P.Act, 2019.

2.       The  case of the  complainant  is  that he is the  owner of  a car bearing Regd. No. OD-19T- 5820 which was   purchased  by  him  from opp.party  No.1. The  said  vehicle   was insured with  opp.party No.2 & 3  vide policy No. 98000031210910362574  covering the  period   30.07.2021 to 29.07.2022. On 03.11.2021  a  man riding  a  motor  cycle  dashed  against the  car  of the  complainant near  Khandahata Chhak  causing  damage. The matter was intimated to opp.party No.2 and the  damage car was  handed over  to opp.party No.1 on 04.11.2021  for  necessary repairing. The opp.party No.1 under took  to  repair  the  car under  cashless insurance  covered  by the  policy issued by opp.party No.2 & 3 .On  11.12.2021 the opp.party  No.1  sent a  SMS to the  complainant , informing  him that the   repairing  work has been  initiated  on 07.11.2021 basing on the  approval   of  the   insurance  company  .After  necessary repairing   the opp.party No.1   demanded  an amount of Rs.1,99,233.00  from the  complainant. The complainant  was  shocked. The  opp.party No.1  did not handover  the  car  to the  complainant inspite of  his  repeated approach. Opp.party No.2 &  3 asked   the  complainant  to take  the  vehicle  on payment of the repairing  cost  to opp.party No.1. On 28.03.2022  the  complainant  received  a  claim repudiation  letter  from opp.party No.4  on the  ground that the  driving  licence has been suspended. After the  approval of the  insurance  company  the opp.party No.1  demanding the amount for  repairing. This  amount to unfair trade practice and there is   deficiency in service. Hence this  case.

3.       Notice was   issued to all the  opp.parties  through registered post with A.D  on 04.06.2022. On perusal   of the  case record  it  appears that  A.D of all the  opp.parties are  available in the case record.

4.       The  case of the  opp.party No.1  is that the  complainant  is  not  the  owner  of the  vehicle  as SBI,Nalco  being the  financer   is the  true  owner until loan has been repaid. The said  vehicle was insured by the complainant  under opp.party No.3 & 4 through opp.party No.2. It met  with  an accident on 03.11.2021  at Khandahata Chhak, for  which the  complainant handover the car to the opp.party No.1   for necessary  repairing  after approval of the  opp.party No.4- the surveyor. The opp.party No.1  repaired the  damage  car  and  demanded an amount of Rs.1,99,333.00  as  opp.party No.4  did not  submit  any report. The  complainant has received  the  claim repudiation letter  from opp.party No.4  on 28.03.2022  on the  ground of suspension  of  driving  licence. The opp.party No.1  has nothing to say relating to the  transaction in  between the opp.party No.2,3 &  with  the complainant. The  complainant  is  liable to pay the repairing  cost  to the opp.party No.1. The case  be dismissed.

5.       The case  of    opp.partyNo.2 & 3  is that  the  case   filed  by   complainant  is  not  maintainable  before this  Commission. The  case is  not maintainable  for  joinder  of  unnecessary party and non- joinder  of   necessary party. The  complainant is not a consumer  against opp.party No.2 & 3. The  complainant is  not  entitled to  the reliefs  claimed, hence the case  be dismissed.

6.       The  case  of opp.party No.4  is that  there is  no cause of action to  file  this case. The case is  not maintainable  for non-joinder  of  necessary party and  mis-joinder  of   unnecessary party .The  complainant  is  not a consumer. The opp.party No.1  submitted the  final  survey  report   along with  claim intimation letter , claim  form , vehicle  documents  driving licence of the  driver, F.I.R copy  before the opp.party No.4 on 03.03.2022. The opp.party No.4  verified  the  documents  received   from opp.party No.1 and  found the  driving licence   issued in  favour  of  Pitambar Behera   was suspended  from 06.09.2021  to 05.12.2021, covering the date of  accident   i.e  on 02.11.2021. Accordingly  on 18.03.2022  the opp.party No.4  has  sent  a letter to the  complainant through Regd. post   for  clarification . The  complainant did  not answer  to the   said  letter of opp.party No.4 .So  on 28.03.2022  the  opp.party No.4  sent  the repudiation letter to the  complainant  on the  ground that  Pitambar Behera  had  no valid  licence on the date   of  accident, for  which   the  complainant  is  not  entitled for the  claim. Senction-149  of  M.V Act has been  violated .The  case  be dismissed.

7.        Perused the  complaint petition  filed by the  complainant  and the  documents  relied  on by him. Gone through the   written statement  filed by the  opp.party No.1,2,3 & 4  and  the  documents relied on  by them.

8.      From the  materials on record   it  is  clear that on the date of  accident i.e on 03.11.2021  the vehicle of the  complainant  was  drove by  Pitambar Behera whose  driving  licence was suspended  for  a  period  covering the  said  date of accident. So the  repudiation of claim by the opp.party No.4  is legally correct. Opp.party No.1  also demanded   the  cost  of the repairing  from the   complainant  legally. So  there  is   no deficiency  in service by the  opp.parties  at all.

9.        Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

           The  case be and the same is  dismissed on contest.

[HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo]
[HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.