1.                     The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant is the owner of a vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No. OD-10A-0447 insured with OP.1 vide Policy No.84038104 valid from 20.5.2013 to 19.5.2014.  The insured vehicle met with an accident on 12.2.2014 near Junagarh in the district of Kalahandi and a case was registered by Junagarh PS vide FIR No.30(11) dt.12.2.2014 and the fact was also intimated to OP.1 who advised to shift the vehicle to the garage.  It is submitted that the vehicle was shifted to M/s. Popular Auto Works, Jeypore and the complainant submitted the garage estimate before OP.1 with request to depute Surveyor for garage survey and allow the workshop to proceed with repair but the OP.1 neither deputed surveyor nor advised the workshop to dismantle the damaged vehicle.  Apart from personal requests from time to time, the complainant also got issued legal notice dt.12.11.2015 to OP.1 but in vain as a result of which the vehicle is lying with the garage unrepaired.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 he has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to pay Rs.14, 000/- towards towing charges, Rs.3, 44,401/- towards repair charges, Rs.94, 800/- towards labour charges besides Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation for loss to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted cover of insurance to the vehicle of the complainant vide Policy No.84036104 valid from 20.5.2013 to 19.5.2014.  The OP contended that as per claim application, the insured vehicle met with accident on 12.2.2014 but the OP.1 received accident report from the complainant on 28.4.2014 after lapse of near about 3 months.  It is contended that no spot survey could be conducted as the vehicle was not at the spot of accident then and hence the OP.1 advised the complainant to submit motor claim forms along with relevant documents but the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents for settlement of claim in spite of reminders over telephone.  Due to non submission of documents by the complainant and for violation of insurance procedure manual, the claim could not be settled for which the Insurance Co. has no deficiency in service.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.  The OP.2 in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant stated that the fact of accident was intimated to Junagarh PS on 12.2.2014 and as per advice of the Surveyor of the Insurance Co., vehicle was shifted to M/s. Popular Auto Works, Jeypore.  Thereafter, estimate of repair along with other documents were submitted before OP.1 with request to depute Surveyor but the OP.1 neither deputed any surveyor nor allowed to dismantle the vehicle.  The OP.1 denying the said allegations stated that the complainant only intimated the fact of accident on 28.4.2014 after lapse of 3 months and they requested the complainant to submit the estimate of repair from the authorised Service Station, M/s. Paramount Automatives Pvt. Ltd. with copy of relevant papers for settlement of claim but the complainant failed to furnish the estimate and required papers for which they repudiated the claim on 30.11.2014.

5.                     The complainant has filed a separate affidavit dt.03.10.2017 wherein it is stated that after a week of accident, the matter was brought to the notice of Insurance Co. and as per instruction of Insurance Co. the vehicle was shifted to M/s. Popular Auto Works.  It is further stated that since the OP.1 did not register the claim, he had to go to their Bhubaneswar Office where the claim has been registered vide No.33860401 dt.28.4.2014.  The OP.1 in his counter further stated that the complainant was advised to produce the estimate of their authorised service centre along with necessary documents for settlement of claim but the complainant said to have submitted the estimate of another garage which is not the authorised work shop of the concerned vehicle.  The complainant has not filed any acknowledgement of OP in support of filing of estimate and documents for settlement of claim.  The OP.1 also has not replied to the registered letter of the complainant dt.12.11.2015.  Though the alleged repudiation has been made on 30.11.2014, no copy of it has been filed by either of the parties.  However, the facts of the case clearly show that the vehicle has met with accident causing damage to it.  The complainant is also certainly entitled to get the cost of repair as per rule from the Insurance Co. but due to some communication gap and lack of understanding between the parties; the claim is yet to be settled.  Therefore, the repudiation is illegal if at all it is done and the OP.1 is to reopen the claim file and reconsider the claim for settlement.

6.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part, and the OP.1 is directed to reopen the claim file bearing No.33860401 and accept the estimate of repair afresh along with required documents to be submitted by the complainant for settlement of claim as per rule.  The above formalities are to be completed by the parties within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, no compensation or cost is granted in favour of the complainant.

(to dict.)