Presented by Sri B.K. Pati, Member:-<br /> The Complainant pertains to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant, an educated unemployed, in order to earn his livelihood, purchased a Mahindra Tourister-25 Star Bus bearing Chasis No. MA1GF2BHD53A 80202 and Engine No. BH54A 23884 on Dt. 01/05/2005 being financed by Mahindra Finance. The vehicle was insured with the Opposite Party company vide policy No. 163403/31/04/6302959 after payment of the required premium and completion of other formalities. The Complainant also applied for registration and road permit of the vehicle before the R.T.O., Bargarh by paying requisite fee and tax including a high class tax of Rs. 3,120/-(Rupees three thousand one hundred twenty)only for plying the vehicle inside Odisha before according road permit, thereby completing all paper work relating to the plying of the vehicle. On Dt. 01/05/2005 when going to Samalai Temple, Sambalpur along with near and dear ones to perform puja of the vehicle before commencement of the plying on the road, near Kalapani Chowk a full body truck bearing Regd No. OR-19-A-4577, being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle of the Complainant causing damage to the body and mechanical part of the vehicle including some causality. The driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license and had no role in the accident. The Complainant was entitled to get insurance claim and compensation thereof as the vehicle was having valid insurance at the time of accident. He submitted relevant original documents before the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt. 16/05/2005 who assured him to settle the claim but on Dt. 13/02/2006 repudiated the claim on some baseless allegations. The Opposite Parties also did not pay any heed to the written request and the pleader notice Dt.12/04/2008 served on them for the payment of the claim amount. The Complainant has to pay installment to the finance company with-out using the vehicle for months. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. Besides the insurance amount, the Complainant claims from the Opposite Parties Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand) only towards compensation for negligence and deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur while filing version on behalf of the Opposite Parties admits the insurance of the vehicle furnishing details thereof and contends that as the vehicle was a newly purchased one verification of documents by Insurance Company could not be made at the time of issue of insurance policy. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties deny to have received any information about the alleged accident on Dt. 01/05/2005. The Opposite Party No.2(two) could not settle the accident claim as the claimant did not supply the required documents and on the instruction of the higher authority he repudiated the claim on Dt. 13/02/2006. The Opposite Parties contend that the accident took place on Dt. 02/05/2005 and was intimated to the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt. 03/05/2005, and on the same date the Opposite Party No.2(two) started spot survey of the incident. The Final Surveyor was deputed on Dt.30/05/2005 but the claimant could not submit before the Opposite Party No.2(two) the documents like R.C. Book, fitness certificate, route permit and M.V.I report of the vehicle. The documents like M.V. Receipt No. and the driving license submitted along with form No. 22 by the Complainant was not sufficient for settlement of the claim. The investigation report of investigator Sri Srinivas Mishra inform that, the Bus was not registered to avoid M.V.Tax after purchase on Dt. 16/02/2005 and after accident the sale certificate and other documents were manipulated at the end of the dealer and with the connivance of the R.T.A., Bargarh, registered the vehicle on Dt. 21/09/2005 with a mark of date of purchase as Dt. 01/05/2005.<br /> <br /> The claim of the Complainant was repudiated due to afore said grounds and the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency of service and so petition be dismissed pray the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The insurance of the vehicle in question is admitted and valid. The reason attributed by the Opposite Parties for the repudiation of the claim were that the vehicle was not registered at the time of accident and no route permit and fitness certificate were issued by the registration authority as mentioned in the investigation report. The accident occurred on the very next day of the purchase of the vehicle while on way to Samalai Temple, Sambalpur for performing Puja of the newly purchased vehicle before commencement of its plying on the road, which is a usual practice in this region of Orissa. Copies of documents reveal that the Complainant has applied for registration and road permit before the R.T.A., Bargarh by paying requisite fees and tax including a high class tax of Rs. 3120/-(Rupees three thousand one hundred twenty)only for plying the vehicle inside Orissa, thereby he has completed all formalities and performed his part of duty for registration of the vehicle, route permit and fitness certificate by the time the accident took place at about 4.20 P.M. on Dt.02/05/2005. The Complainant could not be expected to produce the aforesaid certificate as it required time in the official procedure to prepare and handover to the applicant.<br /> <br /> Consequently, the Complainant could not be blamed for non production of the documents for which the Opposite Parties have repudiated the claim. The Opposite parties by not taking into consideration the fact and circumstances involved and by repudiating the claim with out application of mind and reasonableness, have committed deficiency of service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to make payment of the claim made by the Complainant with 9%(nine percent) interest per annum over the claim amount chargeable from the date of repudiation i.e. Dt. 03/02/2006 till payment, besides, cost/compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days hence, failing which both the amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br /> Typed to my dictation <br /> and corrected by me.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri Binod Kumar Pati,<br /> I agree, I agree, M e m b e r.<br /> <br /> <br /> Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora, Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan,<br /> M e m e b r. P r e s i d e n t . <br />