Date of filing:- 25/01/2019.
Date of Order/Judgement:-30/01/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 3 of 2019.
Braja Kishore Sahu, Aged about 62 years, S/o. Late Ramachandra Sahu, At. Bagicha Sahi, Po/Ps/Dist. Boudh, Odisha. 762014 At. Present Plot No. 1294 (P), At/Po/Ps. Nayapally, Bhubaneswar 751012.
Complainant.
V e r s u s
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025 represented through its Branch Manager.
- M/S Laxmi Sales and Service (P) Ltd, Canal Avenue, Sayan, N.H. 6, Po. Gudesira, Bargarh 768038 Represented through its Director.
- Bank of Baroda, Boudh Branch, Po. Boudh, Odisha, Pin 762014, Represented through its Branch Manager.
Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri Manoj Kumar Sahoo
For the Opposite Party No.1:- :- Sri Ashok Kumar Dash
For the Opposite party No.2 and 3 :- :- Sri M.K. Satapathy.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.30/01/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member (w):-
- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainants deceased son Pradeep Kumar Sahu on Dt. 27/03/2015 purchased a TATA ACE FACELIFT vehicle bearing Chasis No. MAT445064FZ00617 and Engine No. 275IDIO6AUYS01503 from Opposite party No.2 by paying Rs. 4,10,228/-(Rupees four lakh ten thousand two hundred twenty eight)only. The said vehicle was financed by Opposite party No.3.
At the time of purchase deceased Pradeep Kumar Sahu got the vehicle insured with the Opposite party No.1 by paing premium of Rs. 22,247/-(Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred forty seven)only towards IDV of the vehicle of Rs. 3,89,717/-(Rupees three lakh eighty nine thousand seven hundred seventeen)onlyon 27/03/2015 to 26/03/2016. In the said insurance policy the Complainant is the nominee. After the purchase of the vehicle the vehicle was registered in the Office of the RTO Boudh on 20/04/2015 vide registration number OD-27-5800.
On dt. 24/11/2015, when Pradeep Kumar Sahu came to Angul to load goods for delivery at Boudh on N.H. 55 in between Kanjara and Bimalbeda at about 2 AM ( 25/11/2015) the vehcle met with an accident, due to the said accident two persons died including the Complainants son. A Police case was registered at jarapada police station vide p.s. Case No. 162 of 2015 and Angul G.R. no. 1532/2015. After the acci8dent the Complainant lodge claim for damage of TATA ACE before the Opposite party No.1. The claim was registered by Opposite Party No.1 vide claim No. MOTO5259727. As per the advice of the surveyor of the Ojpposite Party No.1 the vehicle was shifted to HK Motors, Sambalpur. H.K. Motors, Sambalpur has issued retail invoice amounting Rs.2,69,182/-(Rupees two lakh sixty nine thousand one hundred eighty two) only towards repairing charges and cost of spare parts on Dt. 20/12/2016. After loding of the claim the Opposite party No.1 never asked for any clarification from the Complainant. On Dt. 29/01/2017 the Opposite party No.1 repudiate the claim on the following ground :-
At the time of loss your vehicle was carrying more that the registered seating capacity in the vehicle, this is violation of policy limitation to use terms of the policy. The Complainant further submitted in Annexure 4 the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the Indigo car.
Due to repudiation of claim of the insurance amount the Complainant is unable to release the said vehicle from the service station and also unable to repay the loan amount taken from Opposite party No.3.
Being aggrieved the Complainant filed this Complaint before this Commission.
- The Case of the Opposite parties is that Opposite party No.1 ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd filed its version and submitted that the Complainant is not maintainable the Complainant had been filed beyond statutory period. The Opposite party No.1 admitted that vehicle was insured having validity from 27/03/2015 to 26/03/2016 but denied that the Complaint was the nominee of the insurance policy. The Opposite party No.1 denied regarding the faction of accident and deputed surveyor Er. Manoj Hota where the report submitted by the surveyor was that the vehicle sustained a loss to the extent of Rs. 2,15,000/-(Rupees two lakh fifteen thousand) only and also at the time of the accident the vehicle was carrying more than the registered capacity. There is no deficiency service on the part of Opposite party No.1 and the case is not maintainable.
- Opposite party No.2 M/S LAXMI Sales and service (P) Ltd. Filed its version and submitted that the Opposite party No.2 is the authorized dealer of the TATA Brands. That being financed by the Opposite party No.1, one Pradeep Kumar Sahu has purchased a Tata ACE FACE Lift H.T. vehicle bearing chassis No. MAT445064F2A00617 and Engine No. 275IDIO6AUYS01503 from Opposite party No.2 that the Complainant has never approached to Opposite party No.2 regarding his grievance, nor the said vehicle was brought to Opposite party No.2 for repairment. Hence, the Complaint is not maintainable and to be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.
- Opposite party No.3 filed its version and submitted that the Complainants son had approached the bank of Baroda to avail loan for purchase of TATA ACE-HT (Regd. No. OD-27-5800) to which the Bank agreed. In pursuance of the Complainant and his wife have executed a single demand promissory Note for rs. 3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakh fifty thousand)only for TATA ACE-HT loan on 27/03/2015 payable on demand in favour of Bank of Opposite Party No.3. The borrower Pradeep Sahu has further submitted relevants documents for loan and on the strength of these documents the Opposite party No.3 issued a draft No. 04703 dt. 27/03/2015 in favour of Opposite party No.2 who granted money receipt vide Sl.No. 37 Dt. 27/03/2015 and issued vehicle delivery acknowledgement the loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) only was debited on Dt. 27/03/2015 in the account of the borrower Pradeep Kumar Sahu bearing No. 466206000000007. But the loan amount was stopped due to the sudden demise of the borrower and the account became irregular. The outstanding of loan thereof comes to Rs. 4,00,026.00/-(Rupees four lakh twenty six)only and the loan is to recovered from the parents of borrowers being legal heirs. An advocate notice was served on Dt. 1/03/018 but they remained silent. For the recovery of loan a Civil suit bearing C.S. No. 19 of 2018 is pending as such the Opposite party No.3 is not liable to reprocess the damaged vehicle and the loan is not maintainable.
- Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and following issues are framed :-
- Whether the Complaint is coming under the Jurisdiction of this commission ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief ?
Issue No.1.
In the present care, the Complainants is a resident of Boudh at present residing at Bhubaneswar. The Opposite party No.1 is the insurance company having its head office at Mumbai, Opposite party No.2 is the seller of the said vehicle at Bargarh. Opposite party No.3 is the bank having its office at Boudh. There is no cause of action against Opposite party No.2. i.e. the seller of the said vehicle. Hence, this Complaint is not coming under the Jurisdiction of this Commission.
This case is not maintainable.
Issue No.2.
The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly the following order is made.
O R D E R
The Complaint is dismissed on contest against the Opposite parties. The Complainant is at liberty to file before appropriate court of law.
The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
Order pronounced in open court on 30th day of January 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra) (Anju Agarwal)
Dt.30/01/2023 Dt.30/01/2023.
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r (w)
Uploaded by
(Sri Dusmanta Padhan)
Office Assistant.
