Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 35 of C.P.Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a car bearing Regd. No. OD-19T- 5820 which was purchased by him from opp.party No.1. The said vehicle was insured with opp.party No.2 & 3 vide policy No. 98000031210910362574 covering the period 30.07.2021 to 29.07.2022. On 03.11.2021 a man riding a motor cycle dashed against the car of the complainant near Khandahata Chhak causing damage. The matter was intimated to opp.party No.2 and the damage car was handed over to opp.party No.1 on 04.11.2021 for necessary repairing. The opp.party No.1 under took to repair the car under cashless insurance covered by the policy issued by opp.party No.2 & 3 .On 11.12.2021 the opp.party No.1 sent a SMS to the complainant , informing him that the repairing work has been initiated on 07.11.2021 basing on the approval of the insurance company .After necessary repairing the opp.party No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.1,99,233.00 from the complainant. The complainant was shocked. The opp.party No.1 did not handover the car to the complainant inspite of his repeated approach. Opp.party No.2 & 3 asked the complainant to take the vehicle on payment of the repairing cost to opp.party No.1. On 28.03.2022 the complainant received a claim repudiation letter from opp.party No.4 on the ground that the driving licence has been suspended. After the approval of the insurance company the opp.party No.1 demanding the amount for repairing. This amount to unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service. Hence this case.
3. Notice was issued to all the opp.parties through registered post with A.D on 04.06.2022. On perusal of the case record it appears that A.D of all the opp.parties are available in the case record.
4. The case of the opp.party No.1 is that the complainant is not the owner of the vehicle as SBI,Nalco being the financer is the true owner until loan has been repaid. The said vehicle was insured by the complainant under opp.party No.3 & 4 through opp.party No.2. It met with an accident on 03.11.2021 at Khandahata Chhak, for which the complainant handover the car to the opp.party No.1 for necessary repairing after approval of the opp.party No.4- the surveyor. The opp.party No.1 repaired the damage car and demanded an amount of Rs.1,99,333.00 as opp.party No.4 did not submit any report. The complainant has received the claim repudiation letter from opp.party No.4 on 28.03.2022 on the ground of suspension of driving licence. The opp.party No.1 has nothing to say relating to the transaction in between the opp.party No.2,3 & with the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the repairing cost to the opp.party No.1. The case be dismissed.
5. The case of opp.partyNo.2 & 3 is that the case filed by complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. The case is not maintainable for joinder of unnecessary party and non- joinder of necessary party. The complainant is not a consumer against opp.party No.2 & 3. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed, hence the case be dismissed.
6. The case of opp.party No.4 is that there is no cause of action to file this case. The case is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of unnecessary party .The complainant is not a consumer. The opp.party No.1 submitted the final survey report along with claim intimation letter , claim form , vehicle documents driving licence of the driver, F.I.R copy before the opp.party No.4 on 03.03.2022. The opp.party No.4 verified the documents received from opp.party No.1 and found the driving licence issued in favour of Pitambar Behera was suspended from 06.09.2021 to 05.12.2021, covering the date of accident i.e on 02.11.2021. Accordingly on 18.03.2022 the opp.party No.4 has sent a letter to the complainant through Regd. post for clarification . The complainant did not answer to the said letter of opp.party No.4 .So on 28.03.2022 the opp.party No.4 sent the repudiation letter to the complainant on the ground that Pitambar Behera had no valid licence on the date of accident, for which the complainant is not entitled for the claim. Senction-149 of M.V Act has been violated .The case be dismissed.
7. Perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant and the documents relied on by him. Gone through the written statement filed by the opp.party No.1,2,3 & 4 and the documents relied on by them.
8. From the materials on record it is clear that on the date of accident i.e on 03.11.2021 the vehicle of the complainant was drove by Pitambar Behera whose driving licence was suspended for a period covering the said date of accident. So the repudiation of claim by the opp.party No.4 is legally correct. Opp.party No.1 also demanded the cost of the repairing from the complainant legally. So there is no deficiency in service by the opp.parties at all.
9. Hence order :-
: O R D E R :
The case be and the same is dismissed on contest.