1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. OR 10J-4897 Bolero Pickup having Chasis No.MA12N2GHKB1L62916, Engine No.GHB1L92437 duly financed by Ops 1 & 2 and insured by OP 3 & 4 bearing Insurance Certificate No.150100/31/11/6300051145 valid from 02.1.12 to 01.1.13.  It is submitted that vehicle met with an accident on 24.4.12 at Sargiguda under Kotpad PS and the fact was duly intimated to the local Police as well as the Ops.  As per advice of Surveyor, the complainant took the photographs of the vehicle at the spot of accident and handed over the same to the Surveyor and as per instruction of OPs the complainant shifted the vehicle to the authorized garage i.e. M/s. Paramount Automobiles, Jeypore but as per the advice of Magma authorities, the complainant did not take up the repair of the vehicle for almost 45 days.  Due to such abnormal delay, the complainant personally met the officers of Magma at Jeypore and expressed his displeasure.  One Mr. Saibal from Magma, Bhubaneswar Office advised the complainant to go ahead with repair and the complainant advised the repairer accordingly.  It is further submitted that the complainant as per advice of Mr. Saibal paid the cost of repair and furnished all necessary documents at the office of OP.2 on 06.9.12 and the vouchers were received by one Bipin Bihari Patra, Surveyor of Insurance Co.  As the Ops did not settle the claim, the complainant wrote to Divisional Manager, NIC, Kolkata as well as the Magma Office and sent by Regd. Posts to settle the pending EMIs but the Ops remained silent.  It is also further submitted that the complainant received a letter dt.23.5.12 from Magma Office, Bhubaneswar advising submission of R.C.Book/Smart Card and other connecting documents and the complainant sent the documents by Regd. Posts dt.26.12.12 to OP.2.  In the meanwhile the Ops 1 & 2 played mischief and placed one PDC vide No.748782 by putting the date as 01.7.13 for Rs.63, 060/- with their bank and the same was bounced due to insufficient fund in the accounts of the complainant for which the Ops 1 & 2 initiated a proceeding u/s.138 NI Act in spite of the fact that the complainant had issued NOC in favour of NIC declaring claim settlement amount is to be paid to the Insurance Co. to adjust pending EMIs.  Thus alleging UTP and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct Ops 1 & 2 to make necessary arrangements for early settlement of insurance claim and not to demand any EMI before settlement of insurance claim and the Ops 3 & 4 to settle the insurance claim of Rs. 69, 500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident and the Ops to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation besides Rs.30, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter admitting hire purchase agreement with the complainant on 31.12.11 and contended that an amount of Rs.1, 19,309/- is receivable from the complainant as on 27.1.14 towards other charges excluding Rs.2, 41,969/- towards future installments and the amount awarded towards insurance claim in this case is the property of the Insurance Co.  It is contended that the complainant has not hired the services of the Ops and hence he is not their consumer and this case is not maintainable against the financier.  It is further contended that the Insurance Co. facilitates by collecting documents from the customers and forward the same to the insurer for insurance policy and settlement of claim as an additional service without any remuneration since it is also the financier’s interest that the costumers get their claims promptly.  It is also contended that as per terms of agreement they have preferred arbitration proceeding against the complainant.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on their part they prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The Ops 3 & 4 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the alleged vehicle was never insured under the Ops 3 & 4 and the vehicle was not met with accident near Sargiguda under Kotpad PS.  It is further contended that they have no knowledge about the accident and no investigation was made by the Surveyor and the complainant is to prove the same with documentary evidence.  Thus denying insurance and accident to the vehicle, the Ops contended that they have not committed any deficiency in service and hence the case of the complainant is to be dismissed against the Ops.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops filed nothing except their counter.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case finance to the vehicle no. OR-10J-4897 of the complainant by Ops 1 & 2 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that at the time of finance proposal the Ops 1 & 2 instructed the complainant to insure the vehicle with NIC Ltd. as the said Insurance Co. is their tag up Company.  It is seen from the record and copy of Insurance Policy that the complainant has insured his vehicle with the Ops 3 & 4 vide Policy No.150100/31/11/6300051145 valid from 02.1.12 to 01.1.13.  The Ops 3 & 4 in their counter denied any insurance to the alleged vehicle of the complainant but in view of available of insurance document on record issued by the said Ops, their contention that they have not issued any insurance policy to the vehicle of the complainant is not correct.  Further the Ops 3 & 4 denied the fact of accident to the vehicle of the complainant and insisted documentary evidence.  To meet the objection of the Ops, the complainant has filed copy of certificate issued by IIC, Kotpad PS from which it was ascertained that the vehicle met with an accident at Sargiguda, under Kotpad PS on 24.4.12 and the fact was duly entered in the PS Diary vide No.566 and 572 dt.24.4.12.  Hence we find that the accident to the vehicle of the complainant is true.

6.                     The complainant stated that on being informed about the accident, the OP.2 i.e. BM, Magma, Jeypore in consultation with Insurance Co. requested the Surveyor to visit the spot of accident.  The complainant had also rang up to the Surveyor and as per advice of the Surveyor the complainant took photographs of the ill fated vehicle and handed over the same to the Surveyor.  It is also seen that the claim has been registered vide No. M/11/000391 by the Insurance Co.  From the documents check list, the copy of which is available on record it was ascertained that spot survey report has been filed by the Surveyor, S.K.Sahoo on 18.5.12 and final survey report has been filed by Surveyor, Sri Bipin Bihari Patra on 21.11.12 before the Insurance authorities.  In the above premises, by no stretch of imagination it can be said by the Ops.3 & 4 that the insured vehicle has not met with accident on the alleged date.

7.                     Further the complainant stated that as per advice of Ops he shifted the vehicle to M/s. Paramount Automobiles, Jeypore.  As per documents available on record, Sri B. B. Patra, Surveyor of Insurance has conducted final survey on 21.11.12 and has submitted re-inspection survey report.  It is further stated by the complainant that he paid the cost of repair from his own pocket and released the vehicle.  He submitted the vouchers worth Rs.69, 500/- issued by the repairer at the office of OP.2 on 06.09.12 and the vouchers were duly received by Sri B. B. Patra, the surveyor of insurance.  Further the complainant had written to DM, NIC Ltd., Kolkata as well as Magma authorities but they remained silent.

8.                     It was revealed that without taking any step for release of claim amount, the insurer placed one PDC of the complainant and got it bounced.  Thereafter a case has been initiated by the insurer under NI Act before the CMM, Kolkata in spite of the fact that the complainant issued NOC stating that the claim amount settled by the Insurance Co. shall go to the insurer towards adjustment of EMIs.  The Magma authorities also stated that they have already forwarded the claim to the NIC Ltd for settlement of the claim.  The complainant is not concerned with the internal arrangements between the insurer and the financier but in our opinion the complainant should not suffer at their hands in any case.

9.                     It is also ascertained from the record that the complainant sent a letter dt.24.1.13 to the DM, NIC Ltd, Kolkata requesting early settlement of claim.  He also approached several times to BM, NIC Ltd., Jeypore.  The complainant has also filed copy of insurance certificate as well as copy of certificate from IIC, Kotpad in proof of accident.  In the complaint petition, the complainant also uttered the name of Surveyors who conducted the survey at different times and in different places.  All the above facts remained unchallenged by the Ops in this case.  When the Ops 3 & 4 are grumbling about no insurance and no accident to the alleged vehicle, they are required to file affidavits of above authorities denying their involvement in the affairs of the complainant.  From the above facts it can be easily concluded that the vehicle of the complainant has met accident on 24.4.12 when the said vehicle had valid insurance granted by Ops 3 & 4.

10.                   The complainant submitted that he deposited all relevant vouchers towards repair at Magma Office, Jeypore on 06.9.12 and the vouchers were received by one Sri B. B. Patra, Surveyor.  This fact has been duly intimated to DM, NIC Ltd, Kolkata on 24.1.13, the copy of which is available on record.  This fact also remained unchallenged.  In spite of all those things, we failed to understand as to who restrained the Ops 3 & 4 to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant. 

11.                   From the above facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that the complainant after accident has taken necessary steps in consultation with the Ops and Surveyors, filed claim application, furnished necessary bills worth Rs.69, 500/- and also filed NOC in favour of Insurer but in spite of above exercises, the Ops 3 & 4 remained silent for which the OPs 1 & 2 initiated legal action against the complainant.   Non settlement of insurance claim in favour of the complainant, in our opinion, amounts to serious deficiency in service on the part of Ops 3 & 4.  Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.69, 500/- which he had incurred towards repair of the vehicle and the said amount appears to be genuine.  It is also seen that the complainant has suffered a lot due to non settlement of his genuine claim by Ops 3 & 4 for which the complainant is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and cost will be just and proper.

12.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 3 & 4 being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.69, 500/- towards insurance claim with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this case to the Ops 1 & 2 as per NOC granted by the complainant in their favour and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

To dict.)