Orissa

Cuttak

CC/77/2016

Nibarana ch Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

06 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.77/2016

 

Nibarana Ch. Das,

S/O:Late Kailash Ch. Das,

At:Kharinasi,Coastal,

Dist:Kendrapara,Odisha-754225.                                                    ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch Office,

Biswal Complex,Mahanadi Vihar,

Cuttack.

 

2.      Branch Manager,

Shriram General InsuranceCo. Ltd.,

E-8,EIIP,RIICOIndujstrial Area,

Sita Pura,Jaipur,Rajasthan-302022.....Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    17.06.2016

Date of Order:  06.06.2022

 

For the complainant:           Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1:                  Mr. A.R.Sethy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2 :                 Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                                          

            The case of the complainant in short is that he is the owner of a truck bearing Regd. No.OR-14N-0415 and the same was insured with O.P No.2 under the Policy No.10004/31/13/010821 which was valid from 25.7.12 to the midnight of 13.6.13 and the sum insured was of Rs.7,20,000/-.  The said truck was stolen on 13.5.13 while it was moving from Duburi to Paradeep.  FIR was lodged at Mahakalapada Police Station on 1.6.2013 and intimation was given to the O.Ps in this aspect on the same day.  After registering the claim certain documents were wanted by the O.Ps which they had intimated through their letter dt.30.9.13.  According to the complainant, the O.Ps through their letter dt.15.5.16 had asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.11,31,803/- for which the complainant has filed this case claiming an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- towards the loss of his truck,  a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation cost.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their separate written versions.  According to the written version of O.P No.1, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.  O.P No.1 is the financer and the claim as entitled by the complainant should have been made from O.P No.2 only.  O.P. No.1 has averred that there was no deficiency in service on his part.  According to the O.P No.1, his record reveals that the complainant is liable to pay as on 7.7.16 an amount of Rs.12,00,730/-.  Accordingly, it is prayed by the O.P No.1 to dismiss the case with cost.

            O.P NO.2 in his written version has identically submitted that the case of the complainant being not maintainable should be dismissed with cost.  According to the version of O.P No2, the date of occurrence is 13.5.13 and the FIR was lodged at the police station on 11.6.13.  Thus, delay of 28 days in lodging FIR is not properly explained by the complainant here in this case.  Moreso, it is the plea of O.P NO.2 that the complainant was plying the truck for his business and for commercial purposes.  The delay in lodging the FIR at Mahakalapada P.S, 28 days after the occurrence is not properly explained by the complainant.  Though the complainant had written several letters to O.P. NO.2 those letters were not furnished with the required documents.  As such, the O.P No.2 had to hold that the complainant has no claim for which it is prayed that the complaint petition being not maintainable be dismissed with exemplary cost.

            To prove their respective cases, the parties to this case have filed copies of documents.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as in the written version, this Commission is of the view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.?

            iv         Whether the O.Ps had adopted unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed?

Issue No.3 & 4.

            For the sake of convenience issues no.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration.  The O.P NO.2 has relied upon a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble State CDR Commission,Cuttack passed in F.A No.228/2018 in the case of Shantilata Mallick Vrs. Branch Manager,Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. and also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in case of Ram Avtar Vrs. National Insurance Company Ltd.  O.P No.1 has relied upon a pertinent decision of our Apex Court in the case of M/s. Krishna Food & Baking Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in 2009(1) CPC-1 AIR 2009(SC) in the cased of Suryapal Singh Vrs. Sidhi Binayak Motors.  On perusal of the decisions as relied upon by the O.Ps, considering the latches on the part of complainant, the delay in lodging FIR, non-cooperation with the O.P No.2 for settlement of the claim, this Commission can never rope the O.Ps with the saddle of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in the negative.

Issue No.1 & 2.

            From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here that the complainant had any cause of action to file this case and that his case is maintainable.

Issue No.5.

            From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^{th t} day of June,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.