DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.45 OF 2016
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Smt. Janaki Behera, aged about -37 years
D/O: Late Jagat Behera W/O: Bijaya kumar Nayak
At: Penjisahi Po/Ps: Phulbani Town Dist: Kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
- I.C.I.C.I Lombard
At/Po: I.C.I.C.U Lombard House 4.4 Veer Savarkar Marg
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025.
- Proprietor of Manas Automobile
Authorized SSP of Hero Motocorp Ltd.At: Circular Road
Near R.T.O Office PO/PS: Town Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal
…………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Monoj Kumar Sahoo, Advocate,Phulbani and his Associates .
For the OPP. Parties: For the O.P No.1: Sri V.V Ramadas Advocate,Phulbani .
For the O.P No.2: Sri B.K. Pattanayak,Advocate ,Phulbani and his Associates
Date of Order: 30-06-2017
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that she had purchased one Hero Motocorp Pleasure from the O.P No.2 who is the agent of O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 had received the premium amount of Rs. 1404/-, towards Insurance of the vehicle and accordingly the O.P No.1 issued a Insurance policy in favor of the Complainant on dated. 16-07-2016. The vehicle was registered bearing Regd No.OD-12-8783. On 14-03-2016 at about 11.15 A.M while the husband of the Complainant returned from the Village Landreju, he kept the vehicle on the left side of the road at Sartaguda for passing urine, meanwhile one Dumper bearing Regd No.OD-021-3883 came from Phulbani with rash and negligent manner and dashed with the vehicle of the Complainant, as a result the Vehicle was damaged. So, he lodged F.I.R before O.I.C, Sadar vide PS case No. 31 dated 14-03-2016
-2-
U/S 279/337/338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Complainant intimated this fact to the O.ps. The O.P No.2 started the repairing work of the vehicle on dtd.18-06-2016 after the inspection of the damaged vehicle by the Authorized person of O.P No.1. The cost of the spare parts and laborer charges was Rs. 34,776/- as per the invoices dated 04-08-2016,01-09-2016 and 29-09-2016 .The copy of the invoices was sent to O.P No.1 by O.P No.2 to settle the claim of the Complainant but the O.P No.1 passed for payment of Rs. 18,575/- through A/C transfer in favor of the Complainant against the repair charges of Rs. 34,776/-.The vehicle is still in possession of O.P No.2 due to nonpayment of repair cost . So, the Complainant was suffering both mentally and financially for which this complaint lodged by her for a direction to O.P NO.1 for payment of differential amount of Rs. 16,221/- and for a payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.
The case of the O.P No.1 as per his version is that the Complainant deliberately suppressed the material fact regarding the accident of the vehicle but after knowing the fact the O.P No.1 engaged a surveyor and according to his report the amount was deposited in the account of the Complainant though the company has not received the claim Form, R/C Book, Policy copy and DL of the driver and the estimate . No claim has been made in the prescribed form of the Insurance Company. So, the O.P No.1 issued 2 letters on 06-07-2016 and on 29-07-2016 to the Complainant to produce the relevant documents but on failure to receive any document from the Complainant the Surveyor Assis Routray was engaged for the purpose .So there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P No.1, for which the Complaint is not maintainable against the O.P No.1 and liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
The case of O.P No.2 as per his version is that the Complainant had purchased the said Motorcycle from him and the said vehicle was insured but he came to know about the accident after long gap as per the information given by the Complainant .The O.P No.2 carried the repair work of the said vehicle on good faith as the complainant assured him to pay the repair cost . The Complainant did not clear repair charges and also did not turn off to receive the vehicle in spite of several notices. So, he charged Rs. 50/- per day since 29-09-2016 towards Garage charges. As O.P No.2 has provided proper service to the Complainant, there is no reason to make him a party in this case. The O.P No.2 is yet to receive Rs. 34,776/- from the Complainant towards repair charges of the vehicle.
We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by both parties separately and the copy of the documents filed by both parties in support of their case. It is admitted fact that the concerned vehicle was insured under O.P No.1 and it is also admitted that the Complainant had received Rs. 18,875/- on 21-10-2016 from the O.P No.1 towards the cost of repair charges of her damaged vehicle. So, in this situation there is no scope to decide the maintainability of the case as alleged by O.P No.1. It is stated by O.P No.1 in his version that the surveyor assessment sheet is annexed with the version vide Annexure -A but no surveyor assessment sheet was filed by the O.P No.1. So in absence of the surveyor report it
-3-
can not be proved that the O.P No.1 deposited the amount in the account of the Complainant as per report of the surveyor. The vehicle is still in possession of O.P No.2 as he has not received the full payment of the repairing charges of the vehicle from the Complainant.
In the above circumstances, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The O.P No.1 is directed to pay the rest amount of Rs. 16,221/- to the Complainant towards the repair charge of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The O.P No.2 is also directed to hand over the vehicle after getting the repair charge from the Complainant.
With the above direction the C.C is disposed -of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
