Orissa

Jajapur

CC/274/2012

Purna Chandra Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M SriRam G.I.C Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.C.Panda

17 Nov 2014

ORDER

 

                                      IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

 

                                                                     Present:1.ShriBiraja Prasad Kar,President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

 

Dated the 17^th day of November,2014.

C. C. Case No.274 of 2012

 

Purna Chandra Jena, S/O Late Chandu Jena

Vill.Kimiriapal,P.O.Udayapur

P.S.Bari-Ramchandrapur,Dist.Jajpur.                                        ……………..Complainant. .                                                                     

                                    (Versus)

1. B. M,Sriram G.I.C Ltd, Nahaka chhak(By pass Road) Jajpur Road

   Dist. Cuttack.

2. Area Manager, Sriram G.I.C Ltd, Area office ,2^nd floor,near Rajarani

   Petrol pump ,Gitanjali complex ,luis Road, Bhubaneswar.

3. B.M.Sriram Finance Ltd, Branch Office, Nahaka chhak(By pass Road)

   Jajpur Road,Dist. jajpur.

                                                                                                   …………………………Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:               Sri G. Ch. Panda, Miss B. R. Rout, Advocates.

For the Opp. Parties:               None.

                                                                     Date of order    :    17. 11.2014.

SHRI  BIRAJA  PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.

Deficiency in  service is the grievance of the complainant.

                        Briefly stated, the facts of complainants’ case are that the complainant purchased one TATA Truck bearing registration No.0R-04-N-4905 under the financial assistance of O.P no.3. The said Truck was insured with O.P no.1 and 2 and the insurance was valid from 07.09.2011 to mid night at 06.09.12. During the subsistence of the Insurance policy the complainant’s vehicle met with an accident near a petrol

pump at Bhisma Bridge on dt.01.04.12 at about 9P.M . The F.I.R was drawn by the S.I. Bhisma P.S . Due to the accident the right side of the vehicle got damaged. The complainant informed the O.P no. 1 and 2 regarding the accident. The Insurance

company intimated the complainant to repair the vehicle and they will reimbursed the amount. The Surveyor of the company came and asked for extra money from the complainant to which the complainant refused .  The complainant repaired the vehicle according to the assurance of O.P no.1 and 2. The complainant spent Rs.4,17,000/- towards the repair of his damaged truck. The complainant submitted vouchers and receipts to the O.P no.1 and 2 but the O.P no.1 and 2 did not reimbursed the said amount. The O.P no.1 and 2 have arbitrarily settled the amount at Rs.1,74,000/- which is illegal and ill motivated. The Surveyor report is not correct and with malafide intention the surveyor might have lessened the real expenditure. Challenging the surveyor report the complainant has filed this dispute for deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and  prayed to direct the O.P no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,43,000/- towards the O.D settlement of the Truck to the complainant . The complainant also prayed to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation charges and deficiency in service.

                        Registered notice was sent to the O.Ps. . The O.Ps. no.1 and 3 received notices and the O.P no.2 refused to take notice . Hence the notices were made sufficient against all the O.Ps.. The O.Ps. did not appear and choose to contest the case by filing written version. Hence, the O.Ps. are set-exparte on 05.04.13.

                        On the date of hearing we have heard arguments from the side of the complainant. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

                        On perusal of the pleadings it is clear that the O.P no.1 and 3 paid Rs.1,74,000/- to the O.P no.3 towards the own damage (O.D) settlement of the complainant’s vehicle though the complainant claimed Rs.4,17,000/- towards his O.D claim. It is also revealed that the complainant challenged the report of the surveyor on the ground that the surveyor report is arbitrary, ill motivated  and not correct. Even though the report of the surveyor and loss assessor carries weight, but it can be challenged by any of the parties. In the present case the complainant did not file / produce any cogent evidence to show that the surveyor’s report is arbitrary and illegal

and it is liable to be set-aside. In absence of any such evidence we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant and the C.C. Case is liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R

                        In the result the C.C.Case is dismissed  without any costs .

 

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th day of November ,2014. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                            

                                                                                       

(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                          (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)

          Member.                                                                                                President.

                                                                           Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

 

 

(Miss Smita Ray)                                                                    ( Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )

     Member.                                                                      President.