Presented by Sri G. S. Pradhan, President. <br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased one Maruti Omini bearing Regd. No. OR-17-B-6381 from Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.14/02/2002 and insured the vehicle under the Opposite Party No.1(one) having Policy No. 1889471 which was valid up to Dt.22/03/2008. While the said vehicle was kept in S. Dumberpali Little Flower Public School and at the time of staring of the vehicle, immediately smoke came out under the seat of the driver and suddenly fire broke out. People of the village present in the spot put out the fire throwing sand to the vehicle. The incidence was reported to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on the very day. The officers of Opposite Party No.3(three) reached the sport for inspection and after properly examined the vehicle, they submitted an estimate for an amount of Rs.1,06,582.34/-(Rupees one lac six thousand five hundred eighty two and thirty four paise)only to the Complainant. The surveyor of the Opposite Party No.1(one) submitted a pre-approval letter to the Opposite Party No.3(three) for an amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only and accordingly the Opposite Party No.3(three) demanded Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand)only from the Complainant in advance to repair the vehicle. As the cost of repair demanded by the Opposite Party No.3(three) was very high so the Complainant choose to repair the vehicle from private repairing center. On Dt.18/05/2008 the said vehicle was brought back to Bargarh for repairing with proper intimation to Opposite Party No.2(two). The vehicle was repaired by “Calcutta Auto Works” Bargarh on Dt.21/05/2008 for a sum of Rs.98,000/-(Rupees ninety eighty thousand)only and the original bills was submitted before the Opposite Parties. The Complainant alleges that, the accident was took place on Dt.10/12/2007, the surveyor submitted his report on Dt.10/12/2008 which is one year after the accident and at last on Dt.07/04/2009 the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide its letter No. 49 Dt.07/04/2009 after elapse of 16(sixteen) months in formed the Complainant that the claim is closed as “No claim” is nothing but malafide intention which amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. After receiving the No Claim letter, the Complainant sent pleader notice to the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties remain silent.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the case claiming a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only towards 50%(fifty percent) of the repairing charges of the vehicle, Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only toeing charges from Sambalpur to Bargarh and Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) in their joint version admitted that the Complainant was the owner of Maruti Omini bearing Regd. No. OR-17-B-6381 having a policy bearing insurance policy No. 1889471 which was valid up to Dt.22/05/2008. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The Opposite Parties submitted that, the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle fitted with L.P.G. Gas kit without any endorsement from the Registering Authority which amounts to violation of policy conditions and Motor Vehicle Act-1988. On getting information from the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1(one) deputed the Surveyor/Loss-Assessor, Er. Rabi Narayana Tripathy for inspection of the vehicle and to submit report on Dt. 03/05/2008 and final survey report on Dt.10/12/2008. The Surveyor reported that L.P.G. Gas kit (Gasoline) was fitted in the alleged vehicle. On verification of the Surveyor report by the Higher authority of Opposite Parties, it is found that the alleged vehicle was in use with “L.P.G. Gas kit installation” and running the vehicle by the driver. The installation of L.P.G. Gas kit is not authorized by the R.T.O., Bargarh.<br /> <br /> As it is a violation of insurance policy terms and condition the claim is not admissible and the claim of the Complainant was repudiated and her claim file was closed as “No Claim”. The Opposite Parties intimated the same fact to the Complainant vide their office letter No. 163400/Tech/Maruti claim No. 49 Dt. 07/04/2009 with a copy of the same to the Opposite Party No.3(three). Repudiation of claim of the Complainant is based on sound reasons and evidence so there is no any deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties No.1(one) and No.2(two) towards the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) in its version denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied all other allegation made by the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that, the said Maruti Omini vehicle was insured before the National Insurance Company and was valid up to 22/03/2008 and this insurance is between the National Insurance Company ltd and the Complainant. So the Complainant is not entitled to get the said amount from this Opposite Party No.3(three).<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, version of Opposite Parties, documents available on record and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the owner of Maruti Omini bearing Regd No. OR-17-B-6381 and was insured vide insurance policy bearing No. 1889471 under the National Insurance Company ltd, the Opposite Party No.1(one) which was valid up to Dt. 22/03/2008 is not disputed by the Parties. During the validity of the Policy period, the incidence of fire took place resulting to damage of the Maruti Omini vehicle and the Complainant intimated the fact to Opposite Parties and claim compensation. Surveyor was appointed for inspection of the vehicle and to assess the loss. The Surveyor assessed the net liability to be Rs.30,832/-(Rupees thirty thousand eight hundred thirty two)only as non-standard basis and submitted his report before the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that, the vehicle was fitted with L.P.G. Gas kit without any endorsement from the Registering Authority. The amounts to violation of policy condition and renders the claim in admissible under the policy. Hence the claim file was close. As “No claim” by the ops and the repudiation of claim was intimated to the Complainant vide its letter Dt.07/04/2009.<br /> <br /> The Surveyor during his survey of the insured vehicle found that L.P.G. kit was fitted in the insured vehicle and its gas pipe were not completely consumed. Further the Surveyors states that sand was found around the engine well at the time of survey. So the reported fire fighting by sand is true. Application of other fire fighting agents like water, foam were not available. Thus the fire has been put by sand alone. This indicates that the fire was infant and had not been caused/supported by any leaking gasoline or L.P.G. As per the report of the Surveyor, Jerk and Jolt received by the insured vehicle had displaced the electrical connection and shot circuiting had taken place in the engine wiring when the driver endevoured to start again. Fuse was defective hence the wiring was heated up and caught fire from the spark.<br /> <br /> The flame, thus produced, along the length of the wiring had burnt the plastic material in the vicinity e.g. the seats. So the cause of accident is due to electrical short circuiting and not for L.P.G. Gas kit fitted with the insured vehicle. The insurance company can not repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that, the L.P.G. Gas kit was fitted with the vehicle. The report submitted by the surveyor clearly states the actual cause of accident but with out applying their minds to the report of the surveyor, and with out any sound reason, arbitrarily the Opposite Parties closed the claim file of the Complainant as “No claim”. The repudiation of claim by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) with out applying their mind has committed deficiency in service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Since the Opposite Party No.3(three) is the authorized officer of Odessy Motors Pvt. Ltd. and sold the said vehicle, the Opposite Party No.3(three) has no connection with Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) for settlement of insurance claim of the Complainant. Demanding of advance money for repair of the vehicle is not deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.3(three). As such the Opposite Party No.3(three) cannot be held responsible to pay any compensation.<br /> <br /> Consequently, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and ordered as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties No.1(one) and No.2(two) are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 30,832/-(Rupees thirty thousand eight hundred thirty two)only including 9%(nine percent) interest from the date of repudiation i.e. Dt. 07/04/2009 to the date of this Order and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards compensation/cost of the case to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days hence, failing which the total amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.