DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint  No. 20 of 2022.

Date of hearing     :   21.02.2023.

Date of order                 :   01.03.2023.

Dated the  1^st day of March 2023.

Jayadev Mishra, aged about 32 years,

S/o:-Upendra Mishra, At:- Nilok,

Po:- Begana,

P.S:- Bonth, Dist:-Bhadrak.                                     …………..  Complainant.

-:Versus:-

1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

         Office At:- 3^rd Floor, Hotel Pal Regency Pvt. Ltd.,

          J-7, Jayadev Vihar Road, Bhubaneswar-751013, Odisha.

2.   HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited,

Regd. & Corporate Office:- At- 1^st Floor, HDFC House,

 HT Parekh Marg, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation,

Church Gate, Mumbai - 400020.

3.  Central Honda, City Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.125,

         Sector-A, Zone-B, Mancheswar Industrial Estate

         Bhubaneswar-751010, Odisha.

4. PoonawalaFincorp Limited, (Formerly Magma),

        At:- Development House, 24, Park Street,

Kolkata, West Bengal – 700016                               .…………Opposite parties.

P R E S E N T S.

          1. ShriShiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

           2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

                   Counsels appeared for the parties.

Counsel For Complainant          :  Sri Biswanath Sahoo, Advocate,

Counsel For the O.P. No.1 to 3   :  Sri Pradipta Kanungo, Advocate.

Counsel For the O.P. No. 4        :  Sk. Md. Akhtar Ali, Advocate.

                                                J U D G M E N T.

SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.

          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

          Case of the complainant is that, he is the owner of one private car of the maker of Honda, Model-Amaze-1.2 SMT i-VTEC, Engine No. L21B44023951, ChasisNo.MAKDF55BHJ4008266 bearing its Regd. No. OD-02-AZ-8985 of RTO, Bhubaneswar which is under Finance of Magma Fincorp Ltd. O.P. No.1 & 2 are the Insurance Company under them the vehicle Regd.No.OD-02-AZ-8985was insured vide Policy No. 2311203867760900001 valid from 06.12.2020 to 05.12.2021.  O.P. No.3 is the authorized servicing authority of the vehicle of Honda Motors & as such all of them are the service provider & they are leading party in this case for adjudication of the alleged dispute arose during the course of policy period of the vehicle within the jurisdiction of this Commission as per C.P. Act.  Unfortunately the insured car as above met an accident on dt.12.08.2021 at about 4 P.M. while he was returning from Bonth Market to his house at Nilok on the way near Khaman Canal bridge, one bullock all of a sudden came in front of his vehicle for which he tried to save the bullock & pressed the break as quickly as possible as a result of which the vehicle became imbalanced & dashed against a tree &got damaged and thereafter with the help of people present thereat he could escape from the vehicle.  In this connection PS GD Entry No. 07, dt.14.08.2021 has been entered in the police register at Bonth Police Station.  After reporting the matter to the Insurance Company, Financer of Magma Fincorp as well as authorized servicing authority of Honda Cars India Ltd. of its service at City Motors Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar, as impleaded O.Ps in this case, the vehicle brought to its servicing center at City Motors Pvt. Ltd at Bhubaneswar for accidental repair & accordingly the servicing personnel received the vehicle on dt.16.08.2021 at 5.10 P.M. with vehicle inventory checklist for estimate of repair expenditure upon receipt of insurance paper, RC Book, DL and accordingly insurance claim was lodged bearing claim No.C230021166022 with O.P.No.1 & 2 by the servicing center for approval.  After a long gap of 43 days of lodgment of insurance claim, it came to knowledge from the Central Honda authority that the Insurance Company, O.P.No.1 & 2 have not taken steps for settlement of claim for which the work was pending & accordingly the matter was intimated by the O.P.No.3 of the Honda Servicing unit again through reminder by Central Honda authority.  After that surprisingly the complainant received a mail from the authority of Central Honda, Bhubaneswar on 24.10.2021 with the copy of letter of the Insurance Company (O.P. No.1 & 2) attached with date mentioned as 19.10.2021 stating closure of claim repudiating the claim as “No Claim” in records.  It is also mentioned therein that surveyor deputed by the Insurance Company conducted the loss damage & found damage & found the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.  So far as the above matter is concerned, the complainant has lodged claim on dt.14.08.2021 & the reminder letter of Central Honda authority asking approval for claim settlement by the O.P.No.1 & 2 reveals they have intentionally delayed for a period of 43 days & after getting reminder from the service center, the Insurance Company, O.P.No.1 & 2 all of a sudden without going through the factual aspects as well as damage claim against the comprehensive policy of the vehicle repudiated the very claim which shows their intention to escape from liability through their surveyor which is unfair trade practice and amounts to deficiency in service to the consumer.

The complainant avers that as the claim has not been made against any third party damage, the repudiation of the claim on ground of commercial use, is illogical. When the O.P.No.1 & 2 repudiated the claim of loss, the O.P.No.3 being the service center has intimated to the complainant about repudiation of claim after 65 days claiming per day parking charges of Rs.300/-, it is also deficiency in service for which the O.Ps are jointly liable & responsible.  In the meanwhile the financer, taking advantage of the problems of the complainant, has repeatedly issued notices for payment of loan dues without considering the problems of the poor complainant who is awaiting to take back his vehicle after repair.  In this circumstances he is unable to deposit any money whereas the financer threatening for legal actions which is nothing but harassment.  The surveyor appointed by the O.P. No.1 & 2 has given vague report having no evidentiary value & the same is no way acceptable.  The surveyor has managed to get the report without any basis & without assessing the damage of the vehicle & without accessing to the spot & after a long period & prepared his visit report on false statement to safeguard the interest of insurance company with a malafide intention. After receipt of the letter from the O.Ps, the complainant has issued legal notice through his advocate on dt.01.11.2021 but after receipt of notice, there is no action for further enquiry or settlement of claim by the O.Ps. These above acts of the O.Ps, puts the complainant in mental agony & harassment & he has also sustained financial loss running here & there he is also deprived off to use his vehicle for a long period & his family members using hired vehicle on rent since then for which the O.Ps are responsible for their inaction in the matter which is deficiency in service.  The cause of action of this dispute arose when these O.Ps refused to settle the claim of insurance on 19.10.2021 within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Complainant sustained loss of Rs.8,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, deprived off to use his vehicle, legal expenses & travelling expenses for the deficiency service of the O.Ps & as such  the O.Ps are responsible to compensate the same with repairing of his vehicle.

            The O.P. No.1 & 2 submitted that, the averments made in the complaint are false, premature, misconceived, misrepresented.  The complainant was issued with a Stand-alone Motor Own Damage Cover-Private Car Policy No.2311 2038 6776 0900 001 valid for the period from 06.12.2020 to 05.12.2021 for vehicle No.OD-02-AZ-8985.  Complainant was duly informed about the terms & conditions of the policy including the coverage mentioned therein.  O.Ps received an intimation on 13.08.2021of reimbursement claim for accidental damages for insured vehicle Honda Amaze with Regd. No. OD-02-AZ-8985.Causes of accident was mentioned as damage due to collision with a tree.  Date of accident has been said as 12.08.2021.  Complainant has made the declaration that only he was present in the insured vehicle at the time of accident & he has also made the declaration & signed that he has made all the declaration to the best of his knowledge & belief & that he understands that in case of a fraudulent statement, the policy will be void & all rights will be forfeited. Based upon the surveyor’s report, O.Ps submits as under:

1. In the motor insurance claim form the insured has declared that the number of occupant is one i.e. the insured-cum-driver.  During the inspection O.Ps noticed blood stains on the front left & rear right door trims which indicates that at the material time of accident there were more than one occupant inside the vehicle. Here the insured suppressed the fact & hid the details of the insured & declared in the claim form that no injury is involved in the reported accident.
2. In the claim form the insured has declared that to save a bullock the vehicle got imbalanced & dashed with a tree. But, it is observed that the vehicle is severely damaged from almost all sides of it including under carriage portions which is not possible if the vehicle hit with a tree.  Moreover, during spot inspection of the investigator the insured shown the tree involved which is thin in size & no such damage caused to the said tree in comparison with the damages accumulated on the vehicle.  This indicates that the insured has suppressed the actual cause of loss, the place of loss & the date of loss as the damage accumulated on the vehicle were not fresh in comparison to the date of loss declared.  In the written statement given to the investigator on 01.09.2021, insured has stated that after hitting the tree, the vehicle fell in a drain near the bridge but at the spot shown by the insured, there is no drain or bridge & the insured is showing the muddy paddy field as the place where the vehicle fell down after hitting the tree & this confirms that the place of loss mentioned in the insured’s written statement is not the same with the place of accident shown by the insured to the investigator. 
3. Moreover, in the said written statement the insured has stated that he was using the vehicle for rent to maintain his family.  For scrutiny of the facts of the case, O.Ps appointed an investigator who has obtained the signed statement of the complainant which states that the insured vehicle was being driven for hire & reward purpose & the complainant has stated that he used to earn rent from neighbours for use of his vehicle in commercial capacity. O.Ps submits that the complainant has misrepresented the details of the accident & concealed material facts malafidely to gain illegally from the insurance policy & furthermore, he has breached the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act & the insurance contract itself by driving a private car in hire & reward in commercial nature.  As such, on account of such violation of the policy vide letter dt.19.10.2021.  O.Ps submits that the Company has at all times been acting as per terms & conditions of the policy only & the claim of the Applicant was rejected according to policy terms & conditions.  O.Ps further submitted that Company always acts as a custodian of the funds of public & therefore in order to protect the policy holders, it has tobe at all times vigilant in ensuring that only admissible claims under the policy are paid.  Opponents opts for the best trade practices & always acts in the interest of its policy holders, but at the same time, it seeks to protect itself from any mischief attributable to the policy holders.  The claim paid by any insurance company goes out of the common pool of funds belonging to all policyholders of company & the company has to check the validity of a claim as per the terms & conditions of the policy before honoring it. Insurer cannot do injustice to genuine policy holders by allowing ingenious & invalid claims. O.Ps states that all the material allegations made in the application of the applicant are false & the application is not maintainable either on facts or in law against this respondent, hence the application is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs against this respondent.

It is submitted that the applicant has not made out even a prima facie case for deficiency in service by the O.P. hence the application is liable to be dismissed with costs.It is submitted that various defenses raised in the w/v are without prejudice to one another.The disputed questions of law & facts are involved in the complaint hence the complaint before the Commission is not maintainable & civil suit will have to be filed by the complainant for the alleged deficiency in service.It is further submitted that only to cause of loss to the Govt. Exchequer by avoiding payment of court fees, the complainant has filed this complaint. It is well settled law that when the voluminous evidence &complicated questions are involved in the complaint, the better course is to direct the complainant to approach the civil court to get the grievance resolved by leading cogent oral & documentary evidence.Respondent craves leave to rely upon various judgments of various higher courts in this regard.

OP No.3 submits that they have received the case accident vehicle bearing Regd. No.- OD-02-AZ-8985 from the complainant on 19/08/2021 and handed over the estimate for repair of Rs. 6,13,191/- on 23/08/2021 and that thereafter even after their several reminders, they did not receive any advance amount for repair neither from the complainant nor from the OP Insurance Company for which they have issued request letters to the complainant to take back his vehicle and that they have no role to play in issue regarding repudiation of insurance claim by OP Insurance Company and prayed to stuck their name off from the list of OPs inter alia for a direction to the complainant to take delivery of the case vehicle after payment of necessary dues.

O.P. No.4 submits that the complainant above named has filed the instant complaint suppressing some material facts & liable to be rejected against O.P. No.4.The complainant is a chronic defaulter & could not pay the EMIs on stipulated time & has violated terms & conditions of contract/agreement signed between parties.Further several times dishonored an electronic fund transfer for insufficiency of funds.In this result O.Ps has filled a Criminal Complaint case before Metropolitan Magistrate Court Calcutta U/s 25 of Payment & Settlement Act, 2007 being Complaint Case No. CS 10256 of 2022.In the said case due to non-appearance of complaint, Learned Magistrate Calcutta issued Warrant against the complainant & complainant is hiding himself from Police.O.P. No.4 denies& dispute all the contentions, claims, demands, allegations, averments, imputations & insinuations of the complainant against the answering O.Ps, save what are matters of record & what has been specifically admitted herein.Complaint is totally frivolous & contrary to the well-established law & binding judicial precedents.As per the established principles of law, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ & the relationship between the complainant & the O.Ps is that of ‘borrower’ & ‘lender’.As such, no consumer dispute arises.It is essentially a civil dispute for which the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act.O.P. submitted that in terms of Sec. 2 (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein it is stipulated that a consumer ‘…. does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes’.In the instant case complainant had availed the finance facility for purchase of commercial vehicle & the relationship between the complainant & O.P. No.4 is that ‘borrower’ & ‘lender’.As such no consumer dispute arises for which the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act.In view of the above stipulations the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.It is further submitted that the O.P. is a body corporate, which is serving the public at large by providing the loan & other facilities.The amount, which is disbursed in favour of the complainant, is public money. Complainant has filed present false complaint with ill intention to avoid his liability of repayment of installment.It is further submitted by the O.P. No.4 that learned DCDRC has lacks jurisdiction to decide the present case as per agreement & loan account has already terminated for which is to be considered for the purpose of determining lack of jurisdiction.The transaction between the parties is a contract where both parties must perform their part of obligation.As per the contract bearing No. PG/ 0064/F/19/000124 dt.06.04.2021 the cost of the vehicle is Rs.4,61,693/- out of which an amount ofRs.3,98,453/- was financed by the O.P. including other finance of Rs.6,453/- complainant must pay Rs.5,70,240/- in 48 installments & Rs.11,880/- commencing from01.05.2021 & thereafter 1^st day of every month.Complainant has to repay the loan amount with interest & other charges as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement as well as per schedule of agreement, which schedule is part of agreement.O.Ps have performed their part of obligation by sanctioning loan to the complainant & now it is his turn to perform his part of obligation by repaying the loan dues as per agreement.Admittedly complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan dues.‘Time’ is the essence of contract of this nature which both parties are expected to observe.But the complainant never made payment of the installments as per agreed terms & conditions for which a huge amount of loan remained unpaid.In this regard, reference may be taken of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Co. Vrs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, It is settled principles of law that a person who claims equity, must do equity.It is submitted that the complainant herein had failed to adhere to the repayment schedule as per the agreement from the very inception.Despite repeated notices & reminders from the O.P. complainant herein failed to regularize his loan account, as a result of which O.P. No.4 was compelled to serve a demand cum termination notice dt.10.03.2022 on the complainant herein.It was on refusal & failure of the complainant, to comply with the said notice, that the matter was finally referred to learned Arbitrator Aheri Banerjee on 13.04.2022 despite received termination notice & Arbitration notice the complainant did not appear before Arbitral Tribunal.Submitted by the O.P. that clearly maintain at Sec.5 & 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1986 “that the party to refer to Arbitrator whereas there is a clause of Arbitration in the contract signed between the parties” in the particular matter the complainant has signed the contract with O.P. where there is an Arbitration Clause.In the present case in hand the dispute between the parties was referred to learned arbitrator very much prior to filing of the present consumer complaint in hand & notice was duly served to the complainant for appearance & filing objections if any, despite received Arbitration notice did not appear before the Arbitration tribunal & has suppressed all the relevant facts but with mala fide & ulterior motive the present complainant in order to harass the O.Ps has filed the present case which is not at all tenable in the eye of law.It is further submitted by the O.Ps that the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case & he has no locus standi to file the instant case against the O.P. learned DCDRC has lack of jurisdiction to decide the present case as per agreement & there is no deficiency of service which is to be considered for the purpose of determining lack of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the language of such provisions is preemptory & that it is obligatory for the courts to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement.This view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of H.P.C.L. V/s Pinkcity Midway Petroleum;(2003)6 SCC 503& in the case of P. AnandGajpathyRaju V/s P.V.G. Raju;(2000)4 SCC 539.It is submitted that the existence of arbitration clause excludes the jurisdiction of this forum to try & decide on the present issue.

It is further averred by the O.P. No.4 that under the terms & conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the ownership of the vehicle was to stand transferred to the Complainant from the Financer, upon payment of all the installments & other dues, if any.Until then, the ownership was to be with the Financer.In the instant case in hand as all the installments had not been paid by the complainant to the Financer, the ownership of the vehicle remains with the Financer.The insurer is solely responsible for the settlement of claim & related services thereon & the O.P. merely being a facilitator in such transaction between the insurer & the insured cannot have any role in the processing of insurance claims by the insurer not merely based on the fact of lack of privity but moreover as the O.P. being he financer has no proximate relation to the entire gamut of the transaction between the insurer & the insured complainant by any stretch of plausible interpretation.As financer, O.P. merely facilitate by collecting the documents submitted by the customer & forwarding the same to the insurer for issuance of policy & settlement of claim, if any as an additional service without any remuneration for the same since it is also in the financier’s interest that the customer gets its claim promptly after completion of all due & necessary formalities thereon.However the processing of the claims strictly depends on the terms & conditions of the insurance policy & Poonawalla Fincorp can do little if there is any violation of the same by the insured/customer.The contract of indemnity runs between the insurer & the insured & is limited between the parties to the said terms thereof.The said Hire Purchase Finance Agreement dt.06.04.2021 contains an Insurance clause, i.e. clause 05 is as follows :-the Hirer/s & the Guarantor/s It is further submitted that payment of Installments/Legitimate dues in time is the duty of the complainant & in the present case in hand the complainant/customer has very well deviated the said process & to escape from the clutches to pay his legitimate dues has foisted this false case against the O.P. No.4. On perusal of the complaint petition it is very clear that the allegations levied against the O.P. No.4 all is false, frivolous, baseless & has no legs to stand in the eye of law for which the present complaint case against the O.P. No.4 are liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and after carefully considering the rival contention of belligerent parties, this Commission finds it proper to frame the following issues to settle the consumer complaint:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable and whether the complainant fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ keeping in mind the relationship between the complainant & the O.P No.4 is that of ‘borrower’ & ‘lender’? 
2. Whether the existence of arbitration clause in the hire-purchase agreement excludes the jurisdiction of this commission to try & decide this present complaint?

3. Whether the OP No1 & 2 Insurance Company successfully proved through evidence and documents that their repudiation was right and justified?

4. Whether the contract of indemnity runs between the insurer & the insured & is limited between the complainant & OP Insurance Company only?

5.  Whether OP Insurance Company has committed unfair trade practice and deficient in providing service?

6. If so then to what relief the complainant is entitled to and from whom  ?

The complaint is filed on 04/04/2022 and the cause of action arose on 19/10/2021. So the consumer complaint has been filed within limitation period of 2 years, as envisaged in section 69 of COPRA, 2019. The claim in the consumer complaint is 8 Lakhs, so it is very much within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission. So, the consumer Complaint is maintainable. The answer to second part of issue no.1 is that when the complainant sought to acquire the vehicle but he did not have adequate fund to purchase the vehicle, he approached the OP No.4 for financial assistance to purchase the same. As the complainant hirer agreed to pay the finance charges who in turn makes the finance available to him. So the finance charges constitute the consideration paid by the hirer complainant to the financer OP. So, the complainant is very much a consumer within the meaning of section 2(7) of COPRA, 2019. So, issue no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.

The consumer enactments are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force as per section 100 of COPRA,2019. So, even if there is a clause of Arbitration in the case Hire-Purchase agreement then also that cannot limit the consumer commission to adjudicate the consumer dispute. So, issue no.2 is answered in favour of the complainant.

OP Insurance Company disputes the cause of loss, the place of loss & the date of loss of the complainant with regard to the accident of case vehicle. But these OPs miserably failed to bring on record any documentary evidence which they have mentioned in the written version such as report of their surveyor or investigator. Except their billowing written version, there is absolutely no substance to justify their repudiation of the claim of complainant. Even, the assertion of the OP No.1 & 2 about user of the case vehicle in commercial nature, there is absolutely no evidence on record to say that the case vehicle was used for commercial purpose. On the other hand, the complainant has the Bonth Police Station GD Entry in support of his claim of accident. The registration Certificate and finance documents of the case vehicle say that the vehicle is one for private use.There is no evidence in the record that such and such persons sustained injury due to motor vehicle accident of the case vehicle. None other/ passenger has claimed anything anywhere for sustaining any injury pertaining to the accident of the case vehicle. In absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle was used for hire and reward purpose. The evasive denials and assertions of the OP No1 & 2 fall like a castle of playing cards. So, the OP No.1 & 2 have miserably failed to prove that their repudiation was right and justified and Issue No.3 is thus answered against the OP Insurance Company and in favour of the complainant.

The OP No.4 financer has given financial assistance to the complainant upon terms and conditions of the loan agreement. So, it is certainly entitled to get back its money upon the terms of the agreement and it is an undisputed fact. So, steps taken like issuance of notices by the financer or initiating legal recourses, in case of non-payment of loan EMIs, cannot be terms as acts of OP Financer taken to harass the complainant. Similarly, OP No.3 is the dealer who has received the case accident vehicle bearing Regd. No.- OD-02-AZ-8985 from the complainant on 19/08/2021 and handed over the estimate for repair on 23/08/2021 and that thereafter even after their several reminders, they did not receive any advance amount for repair neither from the complainant nor from the OP Insurance Company for which they have issued request letters to the complainant to take back his vehicle and that they have no role to play in issue regarding repudiation of insurance claim by OP Insurance Company. Insurance Policy of the case vehicle is a discreet contract between the insured and the insurer only. So, it is limited between the parties to the said terms thereof i.e. between OP Insurance company and the Complainant. So, Issue No.4 is answered in affirmative against OP No.4 & 3 and responsibility of indemnification is attributed to OP Insurance Company only.

So far as the last issue of the consumer complaint is concerned, there is no material in the records to say that OP No.4 and OP No.3 has indulged in any unfair trade practice or deficient in providing service. OP No.4 is the financer who has given financial assistance to the complainant for purchase of the vehicle. As per the hire purchase agreement executed between the parties, the complainant is to keep the case vehicle insured for adequate amount for all time during the tenure of the agreement. Allowing or rejecting a claim application is a matter between the insurer and insured. The OP finance company has remained within its rights to issue notices asking repayment of loan and initiated legal proceedings to get back the loan amount which cannot be termed as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. Similarly, OP No.3 has received the accident vehicle for repair and has promptly prepared estimate for repair and cooperated with the Surveyor and Investigator of the OP Insurance company for inspection of the case vehicle in its premises. Further, it is OP No.3 only who has for the first time intimated the complainant about repudiation of the claim and not the OP Insurance Company. There is no act done by OP No. 4 or OP No.3 which can be attributed to them as acts which  resulted in repudiation of the insurance claim. Neither they can be said to have done anything which can be said to be unfair trade practice nor they are deficient in providing service. OP Insurance Company after Claim No.- C2330021166022 has been lodged on 16/08/2021, preferred to brood over the matter for 43 days after vehicle inspection. Annexure-5 filed by the complainant proves the fact. The OP Insurance company has not intimated anything during this period. After elapse of 65 days, it is through the service center only, the complainant could know about repudiation of his claim. This is clear cut deficiency in service. Such evasive repudiation without any evidence or substance amounts to unfair trade practice. The OP Insurance company has failed to prove what it has pleaded in its written version. Such bald assertion without any documentary evidence and substance has no legs to stand. So, issue no.5 is answered against the OP Insurance company and OP Insurance Company is liable to compensate the loss and damage caused to the complainant.

O R D E R.

In the result complaint be and same is allowed against O.P. No.1 & 2 and in favour of the Complainant and dismissed against O.P. No.3 & 4. The entire repairing cost as per the estimate dtd. 23/08/2021 prepared by O.P. No.3 against the case vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02-AZ-8985 shall be borne by O.P. No.1 & 2 against the Insurance Policy of the vehicle and O.P. No.1 & 2 is to pay 50% of the estimated cost of Rs. 6,13,191/- within 15 days from receipt of this order and rest amount shall be paid by O.P. No.1 & 2 after completion of repair work and further pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and another Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 day of receipt of this order, failing which additional 5% interest per annum shall be charged on the total awarded amount from the date of order till the date of payment.  

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 1^stday of March 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.