Adv.for the complainant-. Sri G.C.Hota
Adv.for the O.P - Sri J.K.Sai,A.K.Sarangi and A.K.Sahoo.
Date of filing of the case:- 16.04.2015
Date of order :- 29.03.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1 The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a TATA Ace bearing Regd. No: OD -03-1048 from the OP. No-2 with the financial assistance of OP. No-3 and the vehicle was insured with OP. No.1 The insurance policy was valid from 17.09.2013 to 16.09.2014 midnight . During the said validity period the vehicle of the complainant was met with an accident on dt . 07/12/2013 , near village Jharbandhali. This incident was reported before the Salebhata O.P. and on verification the police found the documents of the vehicle up to date. Thereafter the complainant intimated the accident to OP. No.1 &2 and on verification the OP No.2 estimated the damages amount to Rs.1,54,189/-. The complainant alleges that, although he has observed all the formalities his claim has not yet been settled for which he is sustaining financial loss and the OPs being deficient in service are liable to pay the damages to the Complainant.
2 The Ops have contested the case by filing their written version separately. In his written version the OP. No. 1 submitted that, after receiving intimation about the accident of the complainant’s vehicle, the OP. No. 1 registered a O.D. claim vide claim No: 552700/31/3/6390003470 and asked the complainant to submit all required documents along with duly filled up claim form, which was received by the OP. on dt.12/12/2013 and accordingly a surveyor was deputed who has submitted his report for an amount of Rs.30,500/- for the loss & damage to the vehicle . further the OP.1 averred that, after receipt of the surveyor report the Op requested the complainant to submit the tax invoice , bill , receipt & cash memo toward the repair of the damage vehicle , but the complainant did not submit the same, hence the claim has not yet been settled, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. No.1.
3 In his written version the OP. No.2 denied the complainant’s allegations and submitted that, he has estimated the damage of the complainants vehicle vide estimate No. 21 dt. 12/12/2013 , but the complainant did not paid any amount for which the vehicle has not been repaired.
4 According to OP. No.3, after executing a loan –cum- hypothecation agreement he had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.3,13,000/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of a TATA Ace vehicle and as per the loan agreement the loan amount has to be repaid in 47 monthly EMIS starting from 15/10/12 up to 15/08/2016 . It is further averred that, since the complainant has defaulted in making repayment of loan EMIS, as per the terms & conditiary of the loan agreement, the OP3 repossessed the vehicle and sold it on auction on dt 18/08/2015 after observing necessary procedure . Hence the OP. No.3 claims no deficiency in service on his part.
5 Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record. It appears from the material available on record that, after the accident , the vehicle of the complainant was shifted to the garage of OP. No.2 , wherein the vehicle was repossessed by the financer. Till the time of repossession the vehicle has not been repaired , for which the complainant has not produced the cash memo before the insurance company and hence his claim has not been settled. The principal of indemnity is to restore the status of the insured vehicle. But the complainant has failed to produce the documents relating to loss for bringing the vehicle to a running conditions. In the mean time the vehicle has been repossessed by the financer and there is no evidence available on record to show that the complainant has paid extra premium for consequential incident or loss for the insured vehicle. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 in non settlement of the claim of the complainant.
6 It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased the vehicle with the financial assistance of the OP. No. 3 and has executed a lone-cum-hypothecation agreement . The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that, the OP.3 has no right to reposes the vehicle. If the agreement permits the financer to repossess the vehicle for non – payment of installments, then there is no legal bar to do the same . The complainant has also not prayed for possession of the vehicle after payment of all outstanding loan amount. Therefore repossession of the vehicle by the financer cannot be said to be deficiency in service.
7 Under the aforesaid facts & circumstance these is no merit in the case and hence the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS The 29th DAY OF MARCH’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT
