Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This is  a petition filed  by the complainant U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The case of the  complainant is that  he  is the  registered owner  of Tipper bearing Regd. No. OR-06 G 5073.He   had  purchased the  said  vehicle  to  maintain his  livelihood. The  vehicle  was  insured  under the opp.aprties  against  the  risk of  accident and damage. The policy number  was  3008/65927635/00/800 and  it  was valid  from 10.08.2011  to 09.08.2012 .The  complainant   had engaged  the  driver namely  Sri Madan Rana  and  entrusted  the  vehicle  to  him to ply the same. The driver was having  a valid  driving  licence  bearing No. OR-O0620000016592  while  the  insurance  policy was also  in  force. The  vehicle of the   complainant met  with an accident  on 09.06.2012  while  proceeding  from  Gudiakateni   to Hindol. Getting   information  about  such accident  the  complainant  immediately informed  about the  accident at  Motanga Police  station and   the opp.parties through their  toll free number 1800-209-88888. After  receipt of the  information  the  IIC   of  the   police station verified  about  the  accident and  registered P.S case No. 84  of 2012. The  opp.parties after receipt of the  information from the  complainant  registered damaged  claim bearing No. MOT-02580009  and  deputed  a  surveyor .The  surveyor  visited the  spot , took  photographs  of the  vehicle  and  accident spot ,receipt  the  photocopy  of the  relevant  documents  along with  necessary  original documents  from the   complainant. The  complainant  was  advised  to  remove  the  vehicle from the   spot   for  repairing  to  make  it  road worthy. Till  now   neither the  surveyor  nor the Manager of the opp.parties supplied  a single document regarding the  survey  nor   disbursed the  claim amount. As per  advise  of the  manager  and  the surveyor  the  complainant  brought  the  vehicle to the  garage   situated  at Banarpal  with  the  help    of  a crane .The  damaged  vehicle  was  put  in  Samal Auto India  Pvt.Ltd.  which was an   authorised service  centre of the opp.parties’ company.  The  complainant  estimate the  cost of the  repairing  at Rs. 6,94,240.00  and  placed  the  said  claim  before the Manager. The  Manager assured  to pay  the said  amount  but  inspite of  repeated  approach   it  was not  released  in  favour  of the  complainant. The  vehicle of the  complainant  remained ideal  in   the  garage  campus , for  which the  complainant   paid parking  and  other  charges of Rs. 100.00  per  day. He   is also unable   to pay the EMI  to  his   financer. On 05.02.2013  the  complainant received  a  letter  from opp.party No.2  to  produce the  documents  of the  vehicle. Accordingly the  complainant produced  all the required  documents  before the opp.party No.2  immediately. Being   harassed  by  the  opp.parties, the  complainant  brought   his  vehicle  from the authorised  service  station and kept  without   any   repairing.  This is only due  to negligence of the opp.party. In the  month  of  November, 2013  the   complainant  personally  met the Area Manager at Bhubaneswar  branch office  and  approached  him to disburse the  claim amount  , who refused to   pay  the  same. So the complainant had  sent  legal  notice to the opp.parties  but  no action . Hence   this  complaint.

3.       Notice  was issued to all the opp.parties  through Regd.post with A.D.The opp.parties filed  a written statement on 07.01.2017 .The  copy was served  on the Learned  Counsel for the  complainant.

          The  case of the opp.parties  is that  the  claim  of the  complainant is not  maintainable   in the  eye of law. The petitioner is  not a consumer. The  case is  bad for  non-joinder and  mis-joinder  of  necessary party. The  financer of the  complainant   is a  necessary  party and   the  policy  was  issued in his  favour. After receipt of the  information from the  complainant by  the  opp.parties, he  was  asked to   supply the relevant documents i.e  claim form, original  estimate ,original invoice, payment receipt, proof  of release, policy, driving license, RC,FIR,   but  those  documents were not  supplied. The present  complaint  filed by  the  complainant is   pre-matured   .

          Soon  after  receipt  of   information  about  the  accident  from the  complainant  the opp.parties   immediately   deputed the  surveyor  to the spot  for  investigation. After  preliminary  inspection  by the  surveyor  , he  had  instructed the complainant  to   supply all the  relevant  documents but the  complainant  did not  supply the  same. The  spot  surveyor  Engineer     A.Das  issued  a  reminder letter  to the  complainant  for  submission  of  required documents. Annexure-A  is the reminder letter, Annexure-B  is the  postal receipt and Annexures are the letter dtd. 03.09.2012,05.01.2013,  05.02.2013,28.03.2013. The  insurance company   engaged  Engineer Manoj Pattnaik  for   assessment  of  loss, who assessed the  same at Rs. 1,87,500.00  . In his  report  the  surveyor has  categorically mentioned that the  complainant  was  negligent in supplying the  documents, for  which  there  is   delay. As  per the IRDA  guide line  the  loss  assessed by the  surveyor  is   final. The  complainant has   suppressed the  material facts. The  driver   and   the  person who was sitting in the vehicle  have  given  contradictory  statement  about  the  accident, which  does  not  tallied      with  the FIR story. The  complainant  is  the  owner  of  a crusher  and he used  the tipper  for   commercial purpose. There is  no deficiency  in service by the opp.parties. The  complainant  is  not  entitled to   any relief as  claimed in   his petition.

4.       Non of the parties  adduced  evidence . The  case  is   to dispose of  basing on the  complaint petition, show cause  and the  documents filed by  both the parties.

5.       The  date of  accident  i.e  on 19.06.2022    is  not disputed by the  parties. The fact of   insurance  coverage  by insurance policy  on the date of  accident  is also  not  disputed. The only dispute is  quantum of  amount to be  received by the  complainant  from the opp.parties  due to  the damage   caused to  his  vehicle  due to accident. The Engineer Arunaudayaeswar Das has   done the  preliminary   survey by   visiting the  spot on 22.06.2012  at  11.23 a.m and submitted his report. Engineer Manoj Kumar  Pattanaik submitted his  final  motor  survey  report on 22.02.2013 , in which he  assed the  loss to be Rs. 1,87,500.00 . On the  other hand the  complainant filed the  report of  Samal Auto  (India)  Pvt.Ltd. who is  the  heavy commercial  vehicle  dealer  of Tata Motors. The  said  report shows  that the total estimated  cost is Rs. 6,94,240.00 .There   is  no  material   before the  Forum that the Samal Auto  (India) pvt.ltd  is an authorised  repairing  agency of Tata  Motors. The  settle  principle of law that the  report of the surveyor is  final, if  it is based on reasons. The  complainant failed to produce  any evidence   before  the  Forum to  disbelieve  the  assessment  made  by the  surveyor. Hence the  report of the  surveyor  is  accepted  and the  complainant is entitled to the  amount  suggested by the surveyor  Engineer Mr. Manoj Kumar Pattanaik  by his  report  dtd. 20.02.2013  i.e  Rs. 1,87,500.00 along with  interest.

6.       The  opp.parties claimed  that the delay is  due to  non-supply  of  documents  by the  complainant . On the other hand  it is  the plea of the   complainant  that   he  has  supplied the  documents to the  opp.parties on  their  demand . The contract entered in between the  parties  is a standard form of  contract and the opp.parties are  in a dominant  position. The  complainant is  only to  sign in between the  dotted line. As the  opp.parties  are doing business and getting  profit  out of the  same  they have also same duty  to collect documents available  with  public authorities.  Once  a vehicle  has been  insured  and the claim is  raised  before a insurer, it is also the  duty of the insurer  to collect the  relevant documents  from the public authority, if  not  produced   by the  claimant. Absolutely  there  is  no   evidence  on the part of the opp.parties that they have taken attempt  to  collect the documents  available  with  the public authority. Hence the  complainant  is  entitled  for   interest ,due to  non-settlement  of claim by the opp.parties  in  time.

7.        Hence ordered :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case of the  complainant  is partly allowed  on contest against  all the opp.parties. All the  opp.parties are jointly  and  severally liable  . The opp.parties are  directed to  pay an amount of Rs.1,87,500.00 (Rupees One Lakh Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred) only along with  interest @ 9% pa. From the  date of  registration  of the damaged claim bearing No. MOT- 02580009  till date of payment. The opp.parties are further directed to comply the order within one  month from the date of receipt of this  order.