Date of filing:- 25/07/2014

Date of Order:- 04/05/2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No.17 of 2014.

Torabati Satbabu, aged about 40(forty) years, S/o Torati Ramdu R/o Andhra tikira, Baramkela, Ps/Tahasil-Bheden, Dist. Bargarh

..... ..... ..... Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

1. The Branch Manager of S.B.I., Bheden Branch, Po/Ps. Bheden, Dist. Bargarh.

2. The Branch Manager, S.B.I., General Insurance Co. Ltd., Praful Tower, Second Floor, Plot No. 184 (P) Panposh Road, Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh.

3. The Manager or Authorized person of Genuine Auto Mobiles Near City Railway station, Dhankauda, N.H.6, Sambalpur Ps/Dist. Sambalpur.

..... ..... ..... .... Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri. M.K. Pati, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri D. Mishra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.

For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Ex-parte.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.

Dt.04/05/2016. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Smt. A. Behera, Member (w).

Facts of the Complaint :- Complainant files this Complaint alleging deficiency of service against the designated Opposite Parties on account of purchase and implementation of a Four wheeler Insurance policy where in the Opposite Parties did not performed as per promise made in the policy and all tries of Complainant to got his grievance/issue redressed failed intoto hence this case.

Complainant files the following documents and relies upon them to establish his cause. (copies)

1. Registration certificate of this vehicle in issue.

2. Insurance policy bond from SBI General Insurance.

3. Account statement for account No. 32619082453.

4. Extract of Bargarh sadar PS SD No.293 Dt.15/03/2014.

5. Estimate of bills issued by Genuine automobiles, Sambalpur.

    

Upon passing the initial scrutinization and upon admission for adjudication Opposite Parties were noticed duly along with the copy of allegation/ Complaints against them for appearance and filing of then say in shape of written version as it is said.

Opposite Party No.2(two) appears on Dt.08/09/2014 and files its version on Dt.06/04/2015 denying all the charges against them praying for a dismissal of the Complaint.

Opposite Party No.1(one) appears on Dt.08/09/2014 and files their version on Dt.20/01/2015 denying all the changes against them and prays for dismissal of the Complaint.

Opposite Party No.3(three) appears through hazira by same advocate on Dt.15/10/2014, though he was set ex-parte on Dt.22/09/2014. No proper filing of appearance is available though some steps are available in the case record so stands ex-parte.

Further Complainant files the following documents to strengthen his case.

1. Internet copy of cashless garage Network list of SBI General Insurance.

In middle of all this Complainant files interim petition for release of the vehicle in issue anticipating damages if left in the Garage and after due hearing conducted interim order to release the vehicle in issue was passed on the condition of Indemnity Bond issued by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.3(three) on the repair work done on Dt.10/11/2014.

Opposite Party No.2(two) files documents on Dt.08/07/2015 to establish their case and relies on them.

1. Copies of final survey report of the surveyor.

2. Copy of letter Issued by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.3.

3. Copy of email and discharge voucher.

    

Opposite Party No.2 files the Insurance policy documents on Dt.16/09/2015 to provide further light to the issue raised in the Complant.

Hearing was conducted and complete on Dt.01/03/2016 in the presence of all the parties through their advocates to present their respective causes wherein they submitted in great details referring the documents filed by each of them.

Heard the matter carefully considered the submission, presentation made, referred the documents filed attached to the case records considered the facts presented through petition and following vital points are considered arriving at the final outcome.

1. Purchase of policy , payment of premium,happening of accident , appointment of surveyor, repair of the vehicle at Opposite Party No.3(three) etc are admitted and supported with documents.

2. Opposite Party No.2(two) in their version admits then call centre suggesting the Complainant to take the vehicle in issue to Opposite Party No.3(three) for repair.

3. Opposite No. 3 is in the list of repairing/ service partner of Opposite Party No.2(two) in case of Insured vehicles and supported with documents.

4. The IDV of the vehicle in issue is finalized to be at Rs.6,21,530/-(Rupees six lakh twenty one thousand five hundred thirty)only after due application of the depreciation rates and final sum Insured is the same as IDV agreed between the parties and as per policy terms and supported with documents vide the policy document attached to the case record.

5. Complainants repair bills are not final bills and were estimates where as the cash memo and Tax invoices filed through the approved appointed surveyor were final ones. The cash memo amounting to Rs.90,850/-(Rupees ninety thousand eight hundred fifty)only and Tax invoice for 112 items amounting to Rs.4,41,541/-( Rupees four lakh forty one thousand five hundred forty one)only duly stamped and signed.

   Through upon hearing Opposite Party No.2 alleged that Complained replaced most of the parts in connivance with Opposite Party No.3 to make his vehicle new but could not be proved satisfactorily.

   Further Opposite Party No.3(three) is a business partner of Opposite Party No.2(two) and accordingly settle his claims with him as the insured is well under cover of the policy for all repair Complainant has done no mistake and taken his vehicle to one of the approved service centre of the Opposite Parties and if the Opposite Party No.2(two) doubts the bills made available it is the problem to be settled between them. As Opposite Party No.3(three) is under no pressure to act under instruction of Complainant if at all he has done so he has done it at their own risk being careless and negligent in their part and performance.

6. Upon consideration of the survey report it was found that most deprecation are set at 50% where as as per the policy terms only rubber parts,nylon parts, Plastic parts, types tubes and batteries are to be set at 50% and all other parts including wooden parts are to be set at 10%. Further most of the parts are shown as consequential loss and consumables made out of cover as per policy terms and sounds like made to suit the policy issuer.

7. Premium paid on agreed terms for a sum insure at Rs.6,21,530/- (Rupees six lakh twenty one thousand five hundred thirty)only and the claim is well within the agreed limit.

8. Opposite Party No.3(three) is a listed service center to repair the insured vehicle of Opposite Party No.2(two) and if Opposite Party No.2(two) doubts their business partner its their problem not of the Complainant.

9. Further the allegation of the Opposite Party No.2(two) do not sustain regarding Complainant repaired and replaced most of the parts unnecessarily as the surveyor report speaks about damages occurred to more than 75% and he acessed the damages happening being appointed by Opposite party No.2(two) it self.

10. No discharge voucher is completed.

11. As per the terms if Quantum dispute occur. It should be handled as per arbitration laws and hence out of purview of this forum as pleaded by Opposite party No.2(two) do not sustain in view of the section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

12. Opposite Party No.1(one) the bank has little role in the dispute between other parties being the financier and concerned only to the collection of the money financed and there seems no dispute lies between Opposite Party No.1(one) and Complainant.

13. Further on hearing Opposite Party No.2(two) referred citation like 1993 Vol.3 CPR page 139 WC 2008, Vol.3 CPR page 351 it but did not filed any copies for Consideration.

Note:- Regarding quantum dispute should be referred to civil courts for due conduction point to be noted here that terms is that upon damage insured will repair the vehicle at authorized service centers of the Insurer and insurer will pay the bills to the service partner without interference from the side of the insured and doubt of any connivance in between the service partner and insured on the part of the insurer is not quantum dispute exactly. Even it is open for all the aggrieved parties to knock the doors of appropriate civil courts for their claims to be addressed any orders from this forum is not a bar to avail further remedies of any kind if available.

Under the facts and circumstances discussed earlier forum orders the following.

                                                                                        OR D E R

1. Opposite Party No.1(one) is exonerated from any changes being non associative to the issue.

2. Opposite Party No.3(three) is directed not to claim any money in terms of charges and is barred to initiate any proceeding using the indemnity bond issued by this complainant related to the vehicle in issue.

3. Opposite Party No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.3(three) will settle the quantum dispute in between them being the business partners for the issue raised and insured or Complainant should not be chased further.

No costs.

Disposed Accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

( Smt. Anjali Behera)

I agree, M e m b e r(w).

(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)

M e m b e r.