Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          The  complainant  has  filed the  present petition U/s. 12 of  C.P.Act,1986.

2.       The  complainant  is   an unemployed youth , who  approached  the opp.party No.2  to purchase  a  vehicle  to earn his  livelihood.  After due  discussion  with the opp.party No.2  the  complainant  paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00  towards  margin  money  and  obtained  finance  of Rs. 5,72,639.99 from opp.party No.2.  He   purchased  the  vehicle  from opp.party No.1  on 29.07.2011.Annexure-A  is  the   photo copy  of  Retail Invoice  dtd. 29.07.2011. Soon after   purchase of the  vehicle he   obtained  hand  loan of Rs.50,000.00 from  his   near and dears and made the  vehicle   purchased  by him    road worthy. Annexure- B  is the  photo  copy  of  registration certificate issued  by the RTO-2 ( not  found  in the   record) . The opp.party No.2  in connivance  with the opp.party No.3  cleverly made the IDV  of the  vehicle  as Rs. 5,44,000.00  by suppressing the  Actual cost of the  vehicle i.e Rs. 5,72,649.99 .Annexure- C  is the  photo copy  of the insurance  certificate issued by opp.party No.3. The  vehicle  of the  complainant  met with  an accident  in the   month of July, 2011  and  thereafter on 06.11.2011  the  vehicle  was  tow-chained   by the  complainant  from the  spot   to the  service centre of opp.party No.1  for  necessary repairing. Of course the matter of  accident  was duly  intimated by the complainant  to opp.party No.2 & 3 . The opp.party No.3  deputed  its loss assessor  , who has  done   his  survey   but  did  not  supply the  copy of    survey  report  to the  complainant  which  is mandatory  as per    insurance  law. The OD  claim was  duly  lodged  at opp.party No.3  .The opp.party No.1  detained damaged  vehicle  in his  work shop  without  any reasonable  cause and  thus  delayed  the  repairing  work  about  one year. The  complainant   lost   his earning during  that   period. There is  deficiency in service  to be rendered by  opp.party No.1. The  opp.party  No.1  put mental  pressure on the  complainant  to pay the  EMIs  but the  complainant  could not  repay  the same in due  time. He  was forced   to pay  over  due charges  and   interest   on the  EMI   to the  financer, due to unnecessary   delay  in repairing. After  repeated  approach    to opp.partyNo.1  & 3  , after lapse  of  more than eight  months  opp.party No.3  gave  a  proposal to the   complainant  to receive an amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00  towards  full discharge of the  claim and  settle  the dispute. The  complainant  was not  willing,   as the   opp.party No.1  has  charged  an  amount  of Rs. 5,46,185.42 towards  repairing. As the opp.party No.1  is  to  get the  amounts spent  by him for repairing, he     in connivance with  opp.party No.3 , he  made     a  proposal  to  sign  the satisfactory voucher  and  to accept  Rs.3,40,000.00 , then the  differential  amount of Rs. 2,06,185.42  to be paid  to  the   complainant   is to be considered. Believing   on such  assurance  of opp.party No.2 & 3   to  get the  differential  amount, the  complainant  put  his  signature  on the  satisfaction   voucher. Thereafter, the  complainant  in  several   occasions  approached the  opp.aprtyNo.1 & 2  to pay the  balance amount   and to settle the  dispute but in  vain. They  both  adopted  unfair trade practice. Finding  no  other  way out the  complainant  issued a pleader notice  to opp.parties on 23.07.2012 , requesting the opp.party No.1  to  pay  an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00  to the  complainant for  delay in repairing. No reply  is received from  opp.party No.1. Opp.party No.3  after receipt of  pleader notice submitted  his  reply  on 10.08.2012. Hence this  case.

3.       Notice  was issued to  both the opp.parties  through Regd. Post with  A.D  on 05.01.2013 . The A.Ds   of opp.party No.3  is  on  record.    The notice issued to opp.party No.1 & 2 are neither   back   nor the  A.Ds, so  it is deemed  that the   notice  has been duly serve on opp.party No.1 & 2. The opp.party No.1 & 2   have not filed  any written statement  nor   contested the  case.

          Opp.party No.3  has filed   its  show cause. The  case of the opp.party No.3   is that  this case is  neither maintainable  in facts  and law. The  opp.party No.3 has  issued   a  Commercial Vehicle  Package  Policy in favour of the   complainant   which was  valid  from  28.07.2011  to  mid night  of 27.07.2012 . It  relates  to the  vehicle  bearing  registration  No. OR-19M-1855 .The  claim of the  complainant  was settled on the  basis of   license  surveyor. As per the  request of the  complainant  the  amount  due  to  him was paid  to the  opp.party No.1 . So  the question of deficiency of  service  does not arise. According to  G.R. 8  of  Indian  Motor Tariff  the IDV  value  will be   fixed by  deducting 5 %  of  manufacturer’s listed  selling  price   of the  brand and  model. Soon after receipt of  claim  intimation, the surveyor was deputed and as per  his report the  amount was  settled at Rs. 3,40,000.00 . The  case  be dismissed.

4.       Admittedly  the  complainant  Raghudatta Mishra has  purchased the  vehicle   by availing   loan from opp.party No.2 .Annexure- A is  photo copy  of the  retail  invoice  from which  it  appears that the  vehicle was  purchased by availing  loan from  opp.party No.2  and the  vehicle was hypothecated to opp.party No.2. Annexure- C  is the   photo copy of the  policy  schedule –cum –certificate of  insurance   of the  vehicle  and the period  of  insurances is 28.07.2011 to 27.07.2012  it is also admitted  by  both the  parties that the vehicle  of the  complainant met with an accident   in the month of July, 2011  which was brought  to the garage  of opp.party No.1   for  necessary  repairing. It is  alleged that the   opp.party No.1  has   charged an amount of Rs. 5,46,185.42  towards  repairing. Annexure- E series  are the  photo copies of  the  bills  issued  by  opp.party No.1  the  authorised  service centre  of the manufacturer. At paragraph- 9 of the  complaint petition  the  complainant  has  alleged  that the opp.party No1 & 2  connived  together  and persuaded  the  complainant  to  receive   an amount of Rs.3,40,000.00  towards the repairing  after signing the  satisfaction   voucher and  accordingly  the  complainant put  his  signature on the  satisfaction  voucher  with  a hope  that they  will pay the   differential  amount   of Rs.2,06,185.42  later on.  Except the  complaint petition the  complainant  has not  produced any other  evidence  to prove that  opp.party No.1  & 3  connived  together  and persuaded him to  sign the satisfaction voucher    by accepting   Rs. 3,40,000.00  towards  repairing Annexure-E  is the  photo copy of the  satisfaction  voucher   executed by the  complainant on 23.06.2012. The said document w as executed by the  complainant in favour of the opp.party No.3 . On perusal of the said document  it  is  crystal  clear that  the  complainant has received  an amount  of Rs.3,40,000.0 towards repairing of the  vehicle  bearing Registration No. OR-19M- 1855  towards  full  discharge   of  his  claim under   policy No. 55010031110100000871  for  the   accident  dt. 05.11.2011. As the  complainant   failed  to  prove that  such satisfaction  voucher  was obtained  from him  by  practising  fraud  by  opp.party No.1  & 3, the  plea taken  by  him is  not accepted. The  complainant  has  accepted the  said  amount towards repairing of  his  vehicle.

           However  at  paragraph- 8  of  his  complaint  petition the  complainant  has  mentioned that by repeated  personal  approach  to opp.party No.1 & 3   after lapse  of  the  more than  8 months , opp.party No.3  persuaded the complainant  to  execute  the  satisfaction voucher for  Rs.3,40,000.00.

         We have  already   hold   the  complainant  failed to prove that opp.party No. 3 after  lapse  of   more than  eight  months  persuaded  him  to sign  the  satisfactory  voucher for Rs.3,40,000.00 .The complaint has not mentioned  in his  complaint petition  the date  on which the opp.party No.1  delivered the  vehicle to  him after  necessary repairing. There is   also  no evidence  who has  caused  the   delay and  what is   the reason  of delay  of  delivery of the  vehicle   to the  complainant  after  necessary repairing. However,  as the  complainant  has  received  the amount of Rs. 3,40,000.00  by signing   a satisfactory  voucher on 23.06.2012 ,  he has   no  right to   claim  more  relating to the  accident of the  vehicle. There is  no deficiency in service by the opp.parties.

5.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case be  and the same is  dismissed on  contest against the opp.parties.