SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

               Deficiency in service in respect of non-settlement of insurance claim of complainant’s vehicle burnt/damaged due to setting into fire are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.

2.             Complaint, in brief reveals that, complainant to earn his livelihood purchased one Tata MagicSchool( 8 STR)(Passenger)vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-29-5057 from Trupti Motors Pvt.Ltd. on dtd.21.03.2013 and availing finance from Tata Motors Pvt.Ltd.(OP No.4) and the vehicle was insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.(OP No.1 to 3). It is revealed from the complaint petition that on the night of dtd.06.12.2016 the vehicle was set into fire and accordingly FIR was lodged before Kendrapara Town Police Station and matter was reported to Asst.Fire Office,Kendrapara Fire Station. It is alleged that, though claim was lodged before OP-Insurance Company, but till date the claim is not settled for which complainant is suffering a financial loss due to non-plying of vehicle, which remains idle and complainant faces difficulties on paying the loan dues of the financer. The cause of action of the instant case arose within the local jurisdiction of this Forum. Further, it is alleged that the acts of the Ops be treated as deficiency in service for causing financial loss and mental agony and complainant claims Rs.3.00 lakhs as compensation alongwith interest of Bank. In the complaint, it is prayed that direction may be given to OPs to provide a defect free vehicle in running condition or to replace the vehicle with a new one alongwith compensation claimed in the complaint.

3.            OP No.1 to 3 Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. on receipt of the notice appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written statement challenging the maintainability of the complaint U/S-11 of the C.P.Act,1986 and on the ground of exclusionary clause raising the point of ‘commercial’ running of the vehicle and denies the allegations in parawise replies. OP-Insurance Company submitting the facts averred that they have issued a commercial vehicle pacakage policy bearing No.0101087490 of the complainant’s vehicle and risk period covers from dtd.21.03.2016 to dtd.20.03.2017. The policy and its conditions are filed as Annexure-A and A1. On receipt of the accident (fire) on dtd.06.12.2016, insurance company deputed Surveyor namely Mr. Ashok Kumar Das to assess the loss and Mr. Das submitted his loss assessment report on dtd.03.03.2017 with net liability of Rs.82,000/-, subject to repairing at authorized workshop and submission of original bills and money receipts. It is also averred that OP-Insurance Company issued 2(two) nos. of letters on dtd.06.01.2017 and on dtd.20.01.17, which are marked as Annexure B & C, wherein it is requested to the complainant-insured to get his vehicle repaired for final survey and on the letter dtd.20.01.2017 it was informed to the complainant that vehicle has neither repaired nor final survey was done, if it is not complied by the complainant claim will be closed as ‘NO CLAIM’.

            Tata Motors Finance Ltd.(OP No.4) appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement. In the written statement, OP No.4 admits the finance of the vehicle of complainant bearing No.OD-29-5057 and it is averred that the vehicle was using for commercial purpose and it is also averred that in the other allegations of the complainant regarding deficiency in service the OP No.4 is no way related as per the relief claimed by the complainant and OP No.4 seeks rejection of the complaint against OP No.4.

4.          Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the documents filed by complainant, which includes attested Xerox copies of letters and statement of accounts issued  to complainant by OP No.4, attested Xerox copies of FIR and Fire Accident Certificate, attested Xerox copy of Regd. certificate, fitness certificate and driving license of complainant and permit of contact carriage. OP-Insurance Company files documents as Annexures(list of documents attached). The admitted facts of case are that complainant purchased a Tata Magic School ( 8 STR) vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-29-5057 availing the  finance from Tata Motors Finance Ltd.(OP No.4). The vehicle of the complainant was insured with Tata AIG General Insurance (OP No.1 to 3) and the insurance was covered the risk period from dtd.21.03.2016 to midlight of dtd.20.03.207. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was set into fire on dtd.06.12.2016 and the insurance claim against the vehicle has not been settled till-date.

             The contesting OPs in their written statement challenge the maintainability of the complaint U/S-11 of C.P.Act raising the question of territorial jurisdiction and on point of ‘commercial’ use of the vehicle and sought dismissal of the complaint as outside purview of the Fora. On perusal of complaint, FIR and Fire Accident Certificate, it is clear that the vehicle in question was set into fire and occurance of setting into fire is a part of cause of action, which  arose within the local limits of this Forum U/S-11(c)  of the C.P.Act,1986 empowers this Forum to adjudicate the dispute where the cause of action arose fully or in part. Further, on the point of ‘commercial’ use of vehicle, nowhere the Ops filed any evidence before the Forum that the vehicle was used for earning profits other the maintenance of livelihood of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.  In the complaint it is alleged that though the accident(Fire) to the vehicle was reported to the police and fire station and information was given to OP-Insurance Company no step has been taken by the OP-Insurance Company to settle the claim. In support, complainant files copy of the FIR and report of the Fire Officer   regarding  the   accident(Fire) on dtd.06.12.2016.   Countering the allegations, it is the version of the OP-Insurance Company that on receipt of the information of setting fire of the vehicle, Mr. Ashok Kumar Das was deputed as Surveyor on dtd.09.12.2017 for spot verification, who submitted the survey report on dtd.03.03.2017 assessing the loss upto Rs.82,000/-. On non-settlement of claim it is submitted by the OP-Insurance Company that as complainant has not repaired his vehicle and not produce the original bills, money receipts for final survey, which has been intimated to complainant vide letter dtd.06.01.2017 and dtd.20.01.2017(marked Annexure B & C). Considering the dispute, it is clear that complaint  is  silent   regarding  repair    of the damaged vehicle in question, the complainant is further silent    on    receipt    of    any   letters    issued   by OP-Insurance Company on dtd.06.01.2017 and dtd.20.01.2017. It is  also clear that the mode of delivery of the above letters to the complainant  are not disclosed by the OP-Insurance Company to substantiate  their plea that inspite of the informations, complainant does not comply the terms and conditions of the policy for settlement of claim. We feel that in the meantime more than one year has been passed from the date of occurrence and nothing is revealed that the vehicle has been repaired but, it is a fact that a loss of Rs.82,000/- has been assessed by the authorized Surveyor Mr. Ashok Kumar Das and it will be practical, if the loss assessed amount is released in favour of the complainant for repair of his vehicle to save the complainant from financial loss and to maintain his family. In the circumstances, we cannot completely liable OP-Insurance Company for deficiency in service as certain terms and conditions of the policy are not complied by the complainant, though it is not intentional rather lack of communication between complainant and OP-Insurance Company. It is also observed that OP No.4, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. has no role to play so far the allegation of complainant is concerned, accordingly OP No.4 is freed from the allegation of deficiency in service.

                Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP-Insurance Company shall release an amount of Rs.82,000/-(Rupees Eighty two thousand only) in favour of the complainant towards settlement of the claim amount within one month of receipt of this order, failing which penal provisions will be initiated against the OP-Insurance Company as per provisions of C.P.Act,1986.   

                          Complaint is allowed in part without cost.

              Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of December,2018.

                                I, agree.

                                   Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

                               MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT