1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that, he is having a truck bearing Regn. No. AP-31X-7250 and the truck is insured with the Ops 3 & 4 vide Policy No.10003/31/13/284703 for the period 22.9.12 to 21.9.13 and financed by Ops 1 & 2.  It is submitted that on 17.4.13 the said vehicle met with an accident at Sunki Ghat causing severe damage and the fact was intimated to the insurer and as per advice of the insurance surveyor, the vehicle was shifted to Inder Welding Workshop, Jeypore.  The vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor at the garage and the repairer estimated the cost of repair at Rs.3, 21,000/- in presence of the surveyor but on 07.9.13, the Ops settled the claim at Rs.28, 700/- and credited the same to the accounts of the complainant without his knowledge.  It is also submitted that the Ops had already taken the original bills and vouchers of the repairer for settlement of claims.  When the complainant requested the Ops to pay his legitimate claims, they turned deaf ear and with much difficulty he paid all the dues to the repairer and released his vehicle.  It is also further submitted that due to nonpayment of legitimate dues, the truck remained unrepaired in the garage for a long time and hence it became difficult to deposit the EMIs and when the complainant released his vehicle from the garage at his own costs and started business, the OP.1 through his musclemen reposed the vehicle on 05.2.2014 at 8.30 PM with all papers of the vehicle and available cash when the truck was returning from Mumbai to VSP and the OP.1 issued a registered notice to the complainant showing the seizure on 10.2.14 at 3.00 PM which is totally false.  The complainant further submits that the OP.1 is demanding Rs.2, 85,420/- towards loan dues as on Feb/2014 whereas the complainant is to get a sum of Rs.2, 92,300/- from the Ops towards insurance claim and other damages due to forceful repossession of the vehicle.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.2, 92,300/- towards insurance claim.  Besides other claims, the complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs to be paid by the Ops.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter jointly denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is not their consumer as he is using his vehicle for commercial purpose and he is doing transport business for earning profits.  It is contended that the Ops acted as mediator only between the customer and Insurance Co. for getting insurance policy and for the act of Insurance Co. these Ops cannot be made liable.  The Ops admitted that the complainant has availed finance for his vehicle bearing No. AP-31X-7250 for a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs and agreed to pay the same in 33 EMIs and also agreed to pay 36% interest for delayed payment if any.  They could only know the fact of accident from the complainant and the Surveyor was engaged by the Insurance Co. to assess the damage.  It is further contended that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant did not pay the loan dues and hence they repossessed the vehicle on 10.2.14 and as per directions of Hon’ble Forum dt.03.03.2014, the Ops have released the vehicle on receipt of Rs.1.00 lac from the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant has failed to obey the directions passed by the Forum to pay regular EMIs and now the due is Rs.3, 12,417/- as on 17.7.14.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant and denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.3 in spite of valid notice remained absent in the proceeding.  The OP.4 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the insurance policy taken by the complainant for his vehicle in question.  It is also further admitted that the Ops have engaged surveyor to assess the damage and surveyor conducted preliminary survey of damage and fixed the net liability of this OP at Rs.28, 700/- and the insurance Co. has paid the amount to the complainant towards full and final settlement of claim and the complainant has received the amount without objection.  It is also further contended that the estimate prepared by the complainant for Rs.3, 21,000/- is not true and for wrongful gain.  The OP also denied the allegation regarding bribe demanded by the surveyor.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops also filed affidavits.  The OP.4 has filed certain documents in support of its case. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case financial assistance obtained by the complainant from Ops 1 & 2 for purchase of truck and insurance to the vehicle obtained  from the Ops 3 & 4 are all admitted facts so also the accident to the insured vehicle on 17.4.13.  The case of the complainant is that due to accident he could not repay the loan dues to Ops 1 & 2 and against the repair charges of Rs.3, 21,000/- the Ops only paid Rs.28, 700/- on 07.9.13 and to pass the entire bill for payment, the surveyor demanded bribe.  Further the case of the complainant is that when he released the vehicle after paying the entire amount and started his business, the Op-1 repossessed the truck on 05.2.14.

6.                     It is seen that at the time of filing of this case, the complainant had made an application u/s 13 (3B) CPA seeking interim direction for release of the seized vehicle from the clutches of the OP.1.  Considering the prayer of the complainant, the Forum had directed the OP.1 to release the vehicle on deposit of certain installment dues by the complainant and the order was complied by the OP and now the vehicle is with the complainant.

7.                     The complainant has filed this case seeking reliefs in two parts.  First part is for direction to the Ops 3 & 4 to pay the entire expenditure incurred towards repair of the truck and the second part is for direction to the Ops 1 & 2 to pay compensation for business loss, mental agony, costs etc.

8.                     While considering first part of the allegations of the complainant it is seen that the alleged vehicle was shifted to garage as per direction of surveyor of the Ops.  The photo copies of accident vehicle are on record.  It is seen that the surveyor has recommended for construction of new Cabin of the vehicle only.  It is also seen from the photo copies that due to impact of accident the cabin portion of the vehicle has been damaged and also the complaint petition is silent about the damage to other parts of the vehicle.  On the recommendation of the surveyor, the Op.4 has settled the claim. The Surveyor during assessment has also taken note about the age of the vehicle and accordingly allowed depreciation.  There is no dispute as severally held by the Hon’ble National Commission and by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the report of the Surveyor is an important document, which cannot be brushed aside easily without any valid justification or any report to the contrary.  The surveyor’s report is available on record and in absence of anything to the contrary of that report we are unable to quash the report of the surveyor as given.  Therefore, we hold the report of the surveyor good and the complainant is not entitled to get anything more from the Ops towards accident claim than that was settled.

9.                     While coming to the second part of the allegations, it is seen that the complainant has himself admitted about the default in payment of EMIs.  It is also seen that the complainant became defaulter prior to the accident to the financed vehicle.  The Ld. A/R for the Ops.1 & 2 submitted at the time of argument that after release of the vehicle, the complainant is not paying the EMIs as has been directed in the interim order of the Forum.  Further the complainant has alleged that without notice the OPs repossessed the vehicle forcefully but on the other hand the Ops submitted that they have intimated the complainant regarding default in payment of EMIs and after repossession, they have intimated the fact to the complainant also.  This being the situation, the OP.1 released the vehicle of the complainant as per direction of the Forum.  It was the duty of the complainant to act as per terms of agreement which cannot be rewritten by any court of law.  Further the allegations that the vehicle was seized by OP.1 through its musclemen and missing of Rs.10, 000/- from the vehicle during such seizure are not proved by the complainant by filing any documentary evidence.

10.                   In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and in the same manner; we also do not find any merit in the allegations of the complainant which deserve dismissal.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)