Date of filing:- 22/07/2016.

Date of Order:-13/04/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 27 of 2016.

Billosh Jonpuri S/o-Late Chedisha Jonpuri, aged about 42(forty two) years R/o & P.o-Attabira, Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office,1^st Floor Basudev Bhawan, in front of Govt. Girls High School Bolangir, P.o/P.s/Dist-Bolangir.

2. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office-A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi -110002.

3. The Branch Manager, Mahindra Finance, 1^st Floor Sabat Tower, N.H.6. Between Ainthapali & Bus Stand Near Kaveri Hotel, Sambalpur, P.o/P.s/Dist- Sambalpur 768004.

4. The Branch Manager, Mahindra Insurance Brokers Ltd, Sandhana house Ground Floor, 570 P.B.Marg, Worli Mumbai-400018.

5. The Branch Manager, Mahindra Towers, G.M. Bhosale Marg, Worli,Mumbai-400018.

6. The Manager Mahindra Trucks & Buses Ltd, Tarani Motors, Sambalpur Dist-Sambalpur. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one)

and the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri B.K. Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.4(four) :- Ex-parte.

For the Opposite Party No.5(four):- Ex-parte.

For the Opposite Party No.6(four):- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.13/04/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the Case ;-

Being persuaded by the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has filed the case pertaining to the below mentioned unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant being an unemployed youth, to maintain his livelihood purchased one Mahindra Truck being financed for an amount of Rs.20,50,000/-(Rupees twenty lakh fifty thousand)only by the Opposite Party No.3(three) on payments of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only as down payments by him with an agreed payments of E.M.I @ Rs.61,662(Rupees sixty one thousand six hundred sixty two)only per month to the Company, and also was paying the same regularly having being insured the vehicle with the Oriental Insurance Company bearing No-Regd No-OD-15-C-1757 chessis No. MAIPFALBCE64G4 and Engine No. BE142G0101 vide Policy No.346000/31/2016/2777, against payment of premium amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only vide their receipt No.742870 Dt.13.08.2015.

The further case of the Complainant is that in the month of May-2014 the said vehicle broke down for which he reported before the Opposite Party No.6(six) for necessary repair but he as he did not take any steps and the same vehicle stood idle till July-2014 for which he sustained financial loss, mental and physical harassment too, but somehow he managed to repay the E.M.I. amount without any default. But to the ill luck of the Complainant the said vehicle on Dt.28.08.2013 due to loose soil tilted towards it’s right near Ranibahal Bridge under Angul P.S. causing damage to it’s body and mechanical parts too, so with much difficulties the same was lifted out and placed before the Opposite Party No.6(six) and was repaired on Dt.01.12.2015 after a prolonged waiting but three after the said repair, again, it started giving the same problem and again it was placed before the Opposite Party No.6(six) and the process of the repair was going on but due to non-availability of parts the vehicle stood for some more days.

The case of the Complainant is also that the matter of the accident was reported to the Angul Police on Dt.28.08.2015 vide S.D. entry No.597 Dt.30.08.2015 thus his case is that the Complainant claimed before the Insurance Company in it’s local office for indemnification of the loss caused due to the said accident but his allegation is that the Opposite Parties slept over the matter on different pretext which as per him amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service, on the other hand the finance company putting pressure for payments of E.M.I. or else to take away the same consequently the Complainant sent a Pleader Notice on Dt.28.12.2015 on the Opposite Parties but to no response from their end hence has filed the case claiming an amount of Rs.3,85,000/-(Rupees three lakh eighty five thousand)only from all counts including litigation expenses, and to substantiate his case the Complainant has relied upon the following documents.

1. Letter on Dt.29.12.2015 issued to the Complainant by the Oriental Insurance Company.(one sheet).

2. S.D.Entry No-597 Dt.30.08.201 of Kishor Nagar P.S(one sheet).

3. Agreement No.3286436 issued to the Complainant Dt.14.08.2014 by Mahindra Finance. (one sheet).

4. Acknowledgment receipt Dt.13.08.2015 bearing No.742870 showing Payments of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand)only by the Complainant to Mohindra Insurance brokers. (one sheet)

5. Xerox Copy of Motors insurance certificates cum Policy Schedule bearing No-346000/31/2016/2777. (four sheet)

6. Xerox Copy of the Letter Dt.30.09.2015 sent to the Manager ,Mahindra Finance Sambalpur Branch. (one sheet)

7. Pleader Notice Dt.28.12.2015.

8. Postal receipt Dt.28.12.15. ( 5 Nos.).

9. Postal A.D. (4 Nos ).

Having gone through the Complaint, the documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case seems to be primafacie a genuine one hence admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties. And in response to the same the Opposite Party No. 1(one), 2(two), & 3(three) appeared before the Forum through their Advocate but the Opposite Party No.4(four) and 5(five) did not appear hence were set ex-parte on Dt.20.12.2016 and the Opposite Party No.6(six) was set ex-parte on Dt. 9.11.2016.

The averments made by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in his version is a total denial to the case of the Complainant on the ground that it is a finance company having it’s head office outside the state, however has facilitated with the finance amounting to Rs.20,50,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand fifty thousand)only for purchasing the said truck of his choice having his own choice of insuring the same with the Insurance Company of his choice and supposed to repay the said Loan amount with interest to his Company irrespective of any incident occurred with the said vehicle while it is in his possession, but the Complainant has failed to do his part of job by making default of repaying the same in time, furthermore has contended that if any dispute arises in between them is to be referred to the Arbitrator as has been agreed by him at the time of obtaining the Loan as has been envisaged in Annexure-1 filed by him, but instead of that the Complainant has filed the case before the Forum as such is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed, apart from that he has also denied the case of the Complainant in other ground too, and to substantiate his case has filed the relevant documents to that effect.

(1) The details of Accounts statements of the repayment schedule of the Complainant.

So far as the version of the Opposite Parties No.2(two) & 3(three) is concerned it is an evasive to the case of the Complainant having his pleas of rendering the Complainant with due service in time and has denied to have caused any deficiencies in rendering service instead has alleged against him to have suppressed materials facts before the Forum to mislead and to engrave the advantage of the Act.

The further contention of the Opposite Parties No.2(two) & No.3(three) is that the Complainant has insured the Vehicle in question in commercial package as goods carrying vehicle bearing No.346000/31/2016/2777 from Dt.19.08.2015 to Dt.18.08.2016 subject to the terms and condition as stipulated in the Policy Condition enumerated in the Policy Bond and as per the same the Complainant is entitled for only the Loss sustained to the Vehicle subject to the deduction of the depreciation and salvage value & policy excess.

In it’s version they have also contended that immediately after getting information about the incident, they have taken all measures to depute it’s surveyor, loss assessor and have taken up all possible measures to indemnify the loss caused to the Complainant and has remitted the amount of Loss in the account Rs.95,000/-(Rupees ninety five thousand)only of his finance company through NEFT as has been provided by the Complainant and the same has been signed the same as full and final amount as such has not committed any sort of deficiencies in rendering service to him rather the Loss assessor has assessed the total Loss at an amount of Rs.89,000/-(Rupees eighty nine thousand)only but the Opposite Parties after verifying the improper deletion has added further amount of Rs.6,380/-(Rupees six thousand three hundred eighty)only on their own and that the Complainant has put a claim of a vast amount of money than the actual loss sustained to the Vehicle in as much as the Opposite Parties have taken all possible measure to make good of the loss of the Complainant hence has not committed any unfair trade practice nor have caused any deficiencies in rendering service, and hence the case is liable to be dismissed, And in it’s support have filed the following Documents,

1. Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy No.346000/31/2016/2777. (Two sheets).

2. Xerox Copy of Claim intimation, Claim form, S.D.Entry, estimates & Money receipts. (11 sheets).

3. Xerox Copy of Final report with Re-inspection Survey Report of Er Manoj Hota. (3 sheets).

4. Xerox Copy of Final survey report with with Re-inspection survey report of ER Mukunda Sahu. (7 sheets).

5. Xerox Copy of the D.L.verification report of Adv. Jaya Prakash Pandia. (2 sheets).

6. Xerox Copy assessment sheet of the Opposite Party. (1 sheet).

7. Xerox Copy of the Letter of the O.P insurance Company to the Complainant.(1 sheet)

8. Xerox Copy of reply of the Complainant to the O.P. Insurance Company with Copy of Letter of H.D.F.C. ERGO GIC.(2 sheets)

9. Xerox Copy of the discharge Voucher and Letter of Complainant.(2 sheets)

10. Xerox Copy of different Emails with NEFT information.(2 sheets)

11. Xerox Copy of the Claim of the Payments voucher and NEFT Transfer statement.(2 sheets)

     

Having gone through the complaint the documents filed by the Complainant and the version filed by the Opposite Parties through their respective Advocates along with the documents filed on their behalf and on hearing their respective counsels the following points of determination have cropped up before the Forum to properly adjudicate the case, hearing arise the points which is not relevant to ego into.

1. Whether the Opposites Parties have Committed unfair trade practice and are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant.

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get his claim amount.

Firstly while considering the point as to whether the Complainant have committed unfair trade practice and are deficient in their action, delving deep in to the materials available in the record it came to our Notice that the Complaint itself does not disclose any materials clearly, we found an ambiguity in it self plea it self as to whether the vehicle was running by the time of the accident or in a standing condition, in as much as the complaint and the S.D. entry made before the police is self contradictory, further it reveals from the complaint that the Complainant has assessed the loss on it’s own without any materials supporting his such assessment to the tune of Rs.3,85,000/-(Rupees three lakh eighty five thousand)only, No materials have been submitted before us from his side to substantiate his claim, on the other hand the Opposite Parties No.1(one) & No.2(two) have categorically mentioned in their loss assessment by their agencies, the surveyor and the loss assessor, on the basis of their physical verification notes and fixed the amount of loss for an amount of Rs.95,000/-(Rupees ninety five thousand)only and have given it to the Complainant through NEFT, which has been duly accepted by him without any objection, further more the Complainant has found to have suppressed such facts in his Complaint, he has not even whispered anything about the same in his Complain petition, even though has signed in the discharge voucher, but so far as the averments made by the Opposite Parties No.1(one) & 2(two) immediately after getting information have provided the claim form to him and have deputed it’s agencies to investigate in to the matter and have settled the claim from their end which has also been received by the Complainant hence in our view the Complainant has failed to prove any offence with relation to the commitment of unfair trade practice or deficiencies of service against them.

And to our observation the Opposite Party No.3(three) is the Financier of the Complainant to facilitate him with the finance in purchasing the vehicle in question, which is an admitted fact as per the Complaint case is concerned, so it is obvious on his part to ask for his repayment of the loan amount, further we don’t find any allegation against him from the side of the Complainant with regard to any unfair trade practice or deficiencies of service on his part , except encircling him with that of the other Opposite Parties for joint and several liabilities, it is also seen from the statement of account of the repayment of loan amount by the Complainant, filed by the Opposite Party No.3(three), where from it has been observed that the Complainant has defaulted in making the repayments of the E.M.I. fixed on him with his consent, so in our findings we don’t find any sort of deficiencies in his part of job against the Opposite Party No.3(three) hence keeping in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, in our consensus view the Complainant has squarely failed to prove any case against the Opposite Parties No.1(one), No.2(two), & No.3(three) and against the Opposite Parties No.4(four), No.5(five) & No.6(six) too even if they have not appeared before the Forum nor have taken part in the hearing of the case, hence our view is expressed accordingly against the Complainant.

Secondly with regard to the point of entitlement of the claim made by the Complainant, since in our foregoing paragraphs we have elaborately discussed the case and have already opined against the Complainant, now it is obvious upon to express our view against the Complainant, hence the order.

O R D E R

Hence in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the case of the Complainant is dismissed being divided of merits against the Opposite Parties, and the same is disposed off accordingly and the same is being pronounced in the Open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.13.04.2018.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

           P r e s i d e n t                         I agree

                                          (Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                      M e m b e r (w)