DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.39 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member .
Sri T. Aswini Kumar Patro, aged - 40 years
S/o: T. Harihar Patro At: Brahman Sahi
(Back side of Head post Office)
PO/PS: - Phulbani Town Dist: kandhamal ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Division Office-2, Bhubaneswar
At/Po- 75 Budha Nagar, Bhubaneswar Dist: khordha-751006
2. Chief Manager,
State Bank of India Main branch, Phulbani
At/PO: Main Road, Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal
3. Manager,
Jalan Automobile Pvt Ltd (authorized Sale and Service center)
At/PO: Remed Chowk, Sambalpur Dist: Sambalpur. …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self.
For the OPP. Parties: For the O.P No.2 - Sri V.V Ramadas, Advocate, Phulbani
For the O.P No.1 and 3: None.
Date of Order: 29-12-2017
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had purchased one TATA Truck bearing Regd No.OD-12-A-7915 on loan from the O.P No.2 and the same was insured under O.P No.1 from 12-11-2016 to Mid night 11-11-2017 vide Policy No. 345800/31/2017/7941 dated 11-11-2016 . He paid the premium amounting Rs. 28,400/- to the O.P No.1. The said vehicle met an accident on
-2-
12-06-2017 near Kansar Chowk under jujumura P.S in the District of Sambalpur. Accordingly the police case was registered vide P.S case No. 0057 dated 12-06-2017 under section 279/337 IPC against the driver of the vehicle. The Complainant came to the spot and intimated the fact to O.P No.1 over phone. After one day the surveyor of O.P No.1 came and took photographs of the damaged vehicle at the work shop of the O.P No.3. The Complainant submitted the claim form along with all required documents and pre estimate of Rs. 8,78,107.75p before the O.P No.1 . The O.P No.1 had not taken any step in spite of repeated request of the Complainant. The Complainant also intimated this fact to the O.P No.2 but he had not taken any action rather deduct the monthly installment from his C.C account. The Complainant could not start the repairing work of the vehicle due to delay in releasing the claim amount by O.P No.1. The O.P No.3 demanded the Complainant to deposit the detained charges for the vehicle for last four months. Hence, the O.Ps are committing deficiency in service. Then, this complaint was filed by the Complainant for a direction to O.P No.1 to pay the IDV of Rs. 9.53.250/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. He also prayed for a direction to O.P No.3 not to demand the detained charges for the vehicle and for a direction to the O.P No.2 not to deduct any installment henceforth.
The case of the O.P No.2 as per his version is that the Bank deducts the monthly loan installment as per the standing instruction given by the Complainant at the time of sanction of loan. The vehicle was purchased by the Complainant for commercial purpose and not for livelihood. The Complainant is having a grocery shop and earns for his livelihood. Hence, this case is not maintainable. The O.P bank has not committed any deficiency in service for which the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The O.P No. 1 & 3 were set exparte as they failed to attend this Forum in spite of getting registered notice.
We have heard the Complainant and the learned counsel of the O.P No.2. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version of O.P. No.2 and the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had purchased the said vehicle on loan exclusively for the purpose of self employment in order to earn his livelihood. He has also mentioned this fact in Para -2 of his complaint petition.
It is admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle on loan, so it does not mean that the said establishment of the Complainant is a Commercial purpose. The cost of the vehicle is Rs. 11, 98,870/- as per Retail Invoice issued by Tata Motors. The same vehicle was insured under O.P No.1 and the Insured Declared value (IDV) is Rs. 9, 53,250/- . It is also admitted fact that the Complainant had purchased the said vehicle on loan being financed by O.P No.2, S.B.I, Phulbani branch. Borrowing a loan from a Bank or any other agency does not mean that the unit is established for commercial purpose. So in the above circumstances the Complainant is a consumer.
The Complainant has filed this case for a direction to O.P No.1 to pay Rs. 9,53,250/- towards the repair cost of his vehicle along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for
-3-
deficiency in service and Rs.10, 000/- towards the cost of litigation. The allegation of the Complainant is that his truck bearing Registration No. OD-12-A-7915 was insured under O.P No.1 for the period of 12-11-2016 to 11-11-2017 and the insured declared value is Rs. 9, 53,250/- . The said vehicle met an accident on 12-06-2017 and the damaged truck was shifted to the service center of O.P No.3 as per instruction of O.P No.1. After his intimation one surveyor was deputed by O.P No.1 who took the photographs of the damaged vehicle at the work Shop of O.P No.3. Thereafter the Complainant submitted his claim form along with the required documents and the pre-estimate towards the repairing of the vehicle amounting of Rs. 8, 78,107.75Ps. But the O.P No.1 failed to settle up his matter in spite of repeated requests, as a result of which he is suffering since the date of accident. In the mean time the O.P No.2 is claiming to repay the loan installment and the O.P No.3 is also claiming detain charges for the vehicle.
On perusal of the record it is seen that the driving license of the driver was valid till 04-12-2017. The tax of the vehicle was paid from 01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018. The fitness of the vehicle was valid from 19-11-2015 till 18-11-2017. The period of the insurance of the vehicle was valid from 12-11-2016 to 11-11-2017. The Complainant has lodged F.I.R on 12-06-2017 on the date of accident before the I.I.C Jujumura Police Station of the District of Sambalpur. The O.P No.1 neither repudiated nor settle-up the claim and lingering the matter without any bonafied reason. The O.P No.1 is also not interested to contest the case. The delay in settling the claim application amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 when there is no discrepancy in the documents filed by the Complainant. Hence, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed exparte against O.P No.1. As the deficiency in service is not established against O.P No.2 and 3, they are exempted from any liability as far as the case of the Complainant is concerned.
The market value of the Insured vehicle is Rs 9, 53,250/-. The estimate given by O.P No.3, the authorized sale and service Center is amounting Rs. 8,78,107/- but as per Insurance certificate cum policy scheduled supplied by O.P No.1 the limit of liability in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event is Rs. 7,50,000/- . Hence, we are of the view that Insurance claim should be settled for an amount of Rs. 7, 50,000/-.Accordingly the O.P No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7, 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of the complaint petition it is on 24-10-2017 till the date of realization within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure the O.P No 1 shall pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with awarded amount.
With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
