DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 16th day of December, 2017
C.D Case No. 03 of 2015
Sri Dinabandhu Barik
S/o- Ganesh Barik
At- Ranipur
P.O- Kadabaranga , Ps-Agarapada
Dist – Bhadrak ………………..Complainant
Versus
01.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial
Services Ltd, represented through
Branch-in-charge, mohan plaza,
Matha sahi Bhadrak
At present- Padmalaya complex
2nd floor, Opposite Bus stand
At/Po/Dist- Balasore- 756001
- Manager
Royal sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd
Amrita Acrede, 3rd floor
CRP Square, Bhubaneswar
751003 ………….Opposite Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri R.K Nayak & Associetes
For the O.P No-1: Sri D.P. Ray Mohapatra & associates
For Op No-2 : None
Date Of hearing - 10.10.2017
Date of order- 16.12.2017
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK,MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The complainant is an unemployed qualified Youngman requested to OP NO-1 for credit support in order to acquire a transport vehicle for earning his livelihood and to manage his family. Op No-1, being satisfied, extended credit support to the complainant for acquisition of a Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No- OD-01A 8101, registered under R.T.O, Balasore. The amount so advanced by OP NO-1 was repayable in 35 Equated monthly Installments commencing from the next month of advance of loan. At the time of documentation, before the loan was financed, the complainant had submitted 7 numbers of signed blank cheques on the demand of OP NO-1 and executed all relevant documents as provided by the then manager in position. The vehicle as mentioned above was insured with the OP NO-2 vide policy No-VC 00112602000100 which covers the period commencing from 25.04.2013 to 24.04.2014 on payment of Rs 25433/ as insurance premium. The vehicle was running smoothly and the complainant had been paying loan EMI to OP No-1 but unfortunately the said vehicle faced an accident on 25.11.2013 at about 1 A.M (Night) while returning from Tikiri to Rayagada causing serve damage to the vehicle. Complainant filed FIR with Rayagada police station on 26.11.2013 and also duly intimated both the Ops about the accident and specifically requested OP No-2 for spot verification and assessment of loss by a surveyor-cum-loss assessor. As per advice of OP NO-3, complainant lodged the claim with the insurer (op-2) together with all relevant documents duly discharged, requesting settlement of the claim within an earliest possible time. Simultaneously complainant had also requested the financier of the vehicle (OP No-1) not to demand for payment of EMI as well as not to charge late payment charges till the vehicle is repaired and ready to be on road. Despite repeated persuasions and requests, Op No-2 did not pay any heed to the grievance/request of the complainant rather denied to settle the claim inflicting a blow to the financial position of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. OP No-2, the insurer is the selection of Op No-1 who is also responsible to expedite the matter for early settlement of claim of loss sustained by the complainant due to Road accident but did not do so, the reason is best known to him. When the complainant filed to yield any positive result in spite of all sincere efforts, finding no other way, instituted this dispute for adjudication with a prayer to issue direction to OP NO-2 to settle the claim of loss sustained due to accident along with compensation.
Ops were issued notices on 21.01.2015 for appearance and filing of written version on dt.11.02.2015. Op No-1 executed power in favor of D.P Raymohapatra, Advocate to conduct the case on his behalf. But from 11.02.2015 till 12.09.2016 none of the Ops filed any written version as a result of which both the Ops were set ex-parte on 12.09.2016 after elapse of one year and nine months approximately.
Heard the complainant ex-parte and perused materials on record. It is evident from the record that the vehicle was acquired by the complainant with the credit support of OP No-1 and insured with OP No-2 on payment of required premium. It is also evident that the vehicle so financed by OP No-1 and insured with OP No-2 met an accident at Rayagada which was reported to all concerned and FIR was also filed with Rayagada police. It is also observed from the complaint that the surveyor duly deputed by the insurer has conducted survey and assessed the loss caused due to accident. The complainant claims to have spent a sum of Rs 1,70,183/- for repairing of the vehicle to make the said vehicle fit to run on the road. More than one and half years time and opportunity was given to the opposite parties to appear and file written versions but they did not prefer to appear and to resist the claim of the complainant. Hence there is every reason to believe that the Ops are intentionally avoiding to settle the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. It is beyond doubt that the vehicle met accident and severe damage was caused as reveals from the certificate issued by Rayagada police station. Therefore it is held that the Op No-2, the insurer of the vehicle, is liable to pay the claim and compensation to the complainant . Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against Ops. Op No-2 is directed to settle the claim of Rs 1,70,178/- to augment the loss caused due to road accident along with compensation of Rs 5000/- and cost of litigation of Rs 2000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. OP No-1 is directed to exempt the late payment charges from the date of accident till the date of liquidation of loan account. This order is must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @7.5% shall be charged on the award amount.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 16th December, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
