1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he is the registered owner of vehicle Indigo CS ELX BS4 bearing Registration No. OR 18C 1616 and the said vehicle is insured with OP.1 vide Policy No.1-247F 4K2 valid from 30.5.2013 to 29.5.2014 and the insured vehicle met with an accident on 20.2.2014 by dashing to a road side tree on Koraput- Rayagada road while saving the cows.  It is submitted that the complainant lodged a complaint at Kakiriguma PS vide SD Entry No.353 dt.21.2.14 and shifted the vehicle for repair to the garage of OP.2 on 10.3.2014.  The OP.2 issued pro forma invoice for Rs.3, 35,094/- but the OP.1 in spite of valid insurance did not settle the claim of the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to settle the claim and the Ops to pay Rs.75, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter admitting the insurance issued in respect of Indigo CS ELX bearing No. OR 18C 1616 of the complainant which is valid from 30.5.13 to 29.5.2014.  It is also an admitted fact that the insured car met with an accident on 20.2.14 and on intimation to OP.1, it sent Sri B. B. Patra, Surveyor on 21.2.14 to the spot who submitted its report on 10.10.14.  It is contended that at the same time the OP.1 handed over a Motor Claim Form to the complainant with advice to submit the claim form along with all relevant documents but on repeated reminders the complainant could not able to submit the required documents for which the claim could not be settled.  Denying the submission of the complainant that OP.2 issued pro forma invoice dt.04.4.14 for Rs.3, 35,094/-, the OP contended that the complainant submitted an estimate dt.02.5.14 for Rs.2, 18,466/- towards cost of repair and basing upon the said estimate, the OP assessed the cost of repair at Rs.1, 80,736/- and after depreciation and salvages it comes to Rs.1, 40,565/- but without complying the claim procedure the complainant has filed this case.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter contending that as per request of the complainant it took up repair of the vehicle and issued invoice of Rs.3, 35,849/-.  The OP also supplied all papers to produce before the OP.1 after the vehicle was ready to be handed over but in spite of repeated requests the complainant has not paid any amount and without taking delivery of the vehicle on payment of repair costs, has filed this case.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Complainant as well as Ops has filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant and OP.2 filed affidavit in support of their respective cases.  Heard from the complainant and the A/Rs for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case the insurance policy issued in respect of the vehicle bearing No. OR 18C 1616 vide No.84091745 valid from 30.5.2013 to 29.5.2014 and accident of insured vehicle on 20.2.2014 under Kakiriguma PS are all admitted facts.  It is seen that the fact of accident has been intimated to the said PS resulting SD Entry vide No.333 dt.21.2.14.  The case of the complainant is that the OP.2 is demanding Rs.3, 35,094/- towards repair through its Pro forma Invoice instead of demanding the same from OP No.1 when the insurance policy is valid.

6.                     The OP.1 stated that they sent Surveyor to the spot on 21.2.14 and the Surveyor also conducted survey at the garage of OP.2 and submitted report on 10.10.14 declaring Rs.1, 40,565/- as net liability of OP.1 but the complainant is yet to file claim form along with relevant documents for settlement of the claim.  It is also further stated that the claim application in respect of the insured vehicle has been filed by other than the insured and hence the claim could not be settled.  It is also seen from the copy of claim form filed by OP.1 that one Kalabati Bag has signed the claim form.

7.                     The OP.1 in his counter stated that they have no knowledge about the estimate received by the complainant from OP.2 for Rs.3, 35,094/- but the complainant has submitted an estimate dt.02.5.14 for Rs.2, 18,466/- towards cost of repair and on the basis of said estimate the OP has assessed its liability at Rs.1, 40,565/-.  The complainant stated that the OP.2 issued an estimate towards cost of repair for Rs.3, 35,094/- on 04.04.15.  Perused both the estimates available on record and found that earlier estimate for Rs.2, 18,466/- has been prepared before dismantling of the vehicle and the OP.2 has clearly mention on the footnote of the said estimate that after dismantling, additional estimate will be given.  After dismantling the OP.2 has issued pro forma invoice dt.04.04.15 for Rs.3, 35, 094/- and also issued retail invoice dt.28.5.15 for the equal amount of Rs.3, 35, 094/-.  In the above circumstances, we failed to understand as to how the Surveyor of the OP.1 fixed the net liability of Rs.1, 40, 565/- on the OP.1 by taking the pre-dismantling estimate of OP.2 into consideration. This inaction clearly shows that the Surveyor has not inspected the vehicle after dismantling and hence the estimate of OP.2 after dismantling of the vehicle cannot be brushed aside by OP.1.

8.                     It is also seen that of late the OP.2 has dismantled the vehicle and prepared the final estimate accordingly due to less interest of the complainant for payment of cost of repair.  The claim application has been signed by other than the insured and the insured has not produced the rectified claim form before the OP.1.  However, in our opinion, it does not mean that the complainant will be debarred of getting his legitimate claim.  In the above circumstances, it would be proper to direct the complainant to furnish a fresh set of claim application along with required documents before the OP.1 for due consideration of his claim and in all fairness the OP.1 is to be directed to re-assess its liability by its Surveyor after due consideration of pro forma invoice dt.04.04.2015 and retail invoice dt.28.5.15 supplied by OP.2 for Rs.3, 35,094/-.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any compensation and cost in favor of the complainant.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to reassess its liability after taking retail invoice dt.28.5.2015 for Rs.3, 35, 094/- into consideration within 30 days of receipt of claim application along with documents from the complainant.  Similarly, the complainant is directed to furnish fresh claim form with relevant documents with the OP.1 for claim process within 15 days from date of communication of this order.

(To dict.)