The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, SBI Proof Road Branch, Sunhat, Balasore.

                    2. Shorn of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant is the owner of one Scorpio vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-01A-4784 and is insured with the O.Ps No.1 and 2 for Rs.7.00 Lacs (Rupees Seven Lacs) only for the period 12.04.2014 to 08.04.2015 vide Policy No.345700/31/2014/3257 under hypothecation agreement with O.P No.3. Being a retired personnel of defence service, the Complainant used the said vehicle as passenger vehicle and income derived from the vehicle is only source of income to maintain his family. But, the said vehicle faced an accident on 08.07.2014 in N.H-60 under Kharagpur Police Station at the time of carrying passengers from Balasore to West Bengal, thereby the Complainant informed about the incident to the Insurance and Financial Authority (O.Ps) and Police seized the vehicle in presence of the owner, Insurance Authority and Bank Staff. After completion of Official works, the O.Ps No.1 and 2 transferred the accident case to their Survey Officer for survey report, as such the Surveyor submitted his Survey report before the O.Ps No.1 and 2 on 04.09.2014. Accordingly, the O.Ps No.1 and 2 issued one denying letter to the Complainant on 17.05.2015 on the grounds "ineffective driving licence bearing No.OR-0120120179006", for which they could not settle the claim of the Complainant, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps. As such the Complainant requested further to the O.P No.1 on 15.04.2015, but the O.Ps denied the same and accordingly, the Complainant wrote an application to Insurance Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar and the Insurance Ombudsman issued direction with order on 07.10.2015 to the O.Ps No.1 and 2 to disburse the claim amount within 15 days. The O.Ps disbursed a sum of Rs.6.70 Lakhs (Rupees Six Lacs Seventy thousand) only on 17.12.2015 taking one application from the Complainant for final settlement and verbally agreed to pay the delaying interest after 7 days, but till date, they do not listen about the same, for which the Complainant took shelter in this Forum. The prayer of the Complainant is for payment of the claim amount along with compensation and litigation cost in total Rs.18,48,833/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Forty eight thousand eight hundred thirty three) only.

                    3. Written version filled by the O.Ps No.1 and 2 through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability. They have admitted that the Complainant had obtained under PCCV-V (more) wheeled vehicles capacity > 6 and 3-wheelers-carrying passengers capacity > 17 package Policy No.34570/31/2014/3257 from 14.03.2014 to midnight of 13.03.2015 against his vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-01A-4784 (M & M Scorpio LX) declaring it's value of Rs.7.00 Lakhs (Rupees Seven Lacs) only, subject to term and conditions of Policy. The Complainant on 10.07.2014 intimated to the O.P No.2 about the accident of the above said vehicle, which took place on 08.07.2014 at Kharigiria on N.H-60 under Kharagpur P.S (W.B). Thus, the Complainant on receipt of the claim form from O.P No.2 submitted the same duly signed along with copy of relevant documents including estimate of loss on the same day. Accordingly, the O.P No.2 appointed an independent Surveyor/ loss assessor to inspect the insured vehicle at the spot and appointed another investigator to obtain certified copy of D.L No. OR-0120120179006 of Sk. Allauddin as disclosed by the Complainant in the claim form from the Licensing Authority, Balasore, which the deputed investigator submitted to O.P No.2 on 14.07.2014 and on receipt of estimate loss from the Complainant, the O.P No.2 requested his higher Authority to appoint an independent Surveyor for assessment of loss of the vehicle alleged due to accident, since estimate of loss exceeds his power. Being appointed by higher Office of O.P No.2 on 22.07.2014, the deputed Surveyor submitted his survey report along with copy of relevant documents to O.P No.2 on 28.08.2014 and on receipt of photo copy of the same from O.P No.2, the loss assessor M/s. N.R Associates submitted final survey report to O.P No.2 on 08.09.2014 assessing the loss in three ways i.e. (1) On repair basis for Rs.5.60 Lacs after deduction of Policy excess and salvage, (2) On total loss net of salvage basis for Rs.5.48 Lacs after deduction of Policy excess and wreck value and (3) On total loss basis of settlement for Rs.6.985 Lacs after deduction of Policy excess. Thereafter, the higher Authority of O.P No.2 on receipt of claim file duly processed by O.P No.2, on scrutiny of the same along with Driving license of Sk. Allauddin (driver of the Complainant), where it is ascertained that he is authorised to drive light motor vehicle-Non Transport and motor cycle with gear w.e.f. 03.05.2012 and Transport vehicle M/HMV (Regd. Chassis) goods w.e.f 09.01.2014. Accordingly, as per R.T.O Office, Balasore vide Letter No.764, dt.11.02.2015, where Inspector of Motor Vehicle, Balasore has clarified that the said driver is not eligible to drive commercial vehicle Mahindra Scorpio (Maxi Cab), thus, the higher Office of O.P No.2 confirmed the said driver was not possessing effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle at the time of accident and as such the insured- Complainant is guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Policy regarding use of vehicle by a Person having effective driving license at the time of accident as enumerated under the headings of “Drivers clause” of the Policy. Accordingly, the O.P No.2 on receipt of advice from their higher Office for repudiation of claim intimated to the Complainant on 17.03.2015. Thus, the Complainant on receipt of the repudiation letter from O.P No.2 lodged a complaint before Insurance Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar on 19.03.2015 and Insurance Ombudsman after hearing from both the sides on 23.09.2015 allowed the complaint of the Complainant with a direction to O.P No.2 to settle the O.D claim without any delay and for implementation of the award, directed the Complainant to furnish a letter of acceptance that the award is full and final settlement of claim with the O.P No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of the award and which is to be complied by O.P No.2 within 15 days of receipt of acceptance letter from the Complainant. And as per advice of higher Office, the O.P No.2 after discussion with the Complainant, forwarded the claim file to their higher Office to settle the claim for Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only towards full and final settlement of claim on 30.10.2015. But, the Complainant did not submit the letter of acceptance that award is full and final settlement of claim with this O.P. The claim was finally settled on 17.12.2015 for Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only by the higher Office of O.P No.2, which was intimated to the Complainant on the same day and on the self same day, the Complainant submitted letter of acceptance agreeing to receive settled amount of Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only towards full and final settlement of claim and the O.P No.2 paid the settled amount to him on 18.12.2015 through O.P No.3, which has been credited to his account. Hence there is no delay in payment of claim amount.

                     4. Though O.P No.3 neither appeared in this case nor filed his written version, so the O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.              

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.

(ii) Whether the order of the Ombudsman has been duly carried out by the O.Ps.

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their pleas, both the Parties have filed certain documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that due to latches of the O.Ps, he suffered a lot, for which he claims 14% interest on Rs.7 Lacs (Rupees Sevan Lacs) only for 17 months, loss of vehicle business for 17 months, loss of income of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand five hundred) only per month for 10 years, mental agony for 3 family members along with Complainant, penalty for deficiency of service to Consumer and case litigation charges with Advocate fees total amounting to Rs.18,48,833/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs forty eight thousand eight hundred thirty three) only. After repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company, the Complainant has approached the Insurance Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has passed an order dt.07.10.2015, which is availed in the case record as Annexure-23 and the Order portion is reads as follows:-    “The Complaint is allowed. The O.P is hereby directed to settle the OD claim of the Complainant without any delay. Let the Copy of this “ORDER” be sent to both Parties by Regd. Post. For implementation of the award, the Complainant shall furnish to the O.P within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the award, a letter of acceptance that the award is in full and final settlement of the claim and the O.P shall comply with the award within 15 days of the receipt of the acceptance letter from the Complainant, under intimation to this Forum”.  But the O.Ps disbursed Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only on 17.12.2015 taking one application from the Complainant for final settlement and verbally agreed to pay the delaying interest. But, the O.Ps did not comply the same. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that after discussion with the Complainant and as per order of the Insurance Ombudsman, they forwarded the claim file to their higher Office for settlement of claim for Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only towards full and final settlement of claim on 30.10.2015. But, the Complainant did not submit the letter of acceptance and filed the same on 17.12.2015. Finally, the O.Ps settled the claim on 17.12.2015 for the amount of Rs.6.70 Lacs (Rupees Six Lacs seventy thousand) only towards full and final settlement of claim. The amount was credited to the account of the Complainant on 18.12.2015. So, according to order of the Insurance Ombudsman and after filing of letter of acceptance, the amount was duly credited without any further delay, for which the further claim of the Complainant before this Forum has no basis and no force in the eyes of Law basing on the settled principle of Law. In support of their argument, the O.Ps have relied upon the Authority reported in 2010(4) CPR-220 in the case of Rajendra Panigrahy (Vrs.) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble State C.D.R Commission, Odisha that Consumer Fora cannot sit in appeal to examine the propriety of order passed by Ombudsman in Insurance claim, where Complainant had accepted the award given by Ombudsman. Further, in the Authority reported in 1993(3) CPR-53 (SC) in the case of United India Insurance (Vrs.) Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills and others, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if Consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances appropriate relief can be granted. But, similar view was also taken in the Authority reported in 2008(4) CPR-96 (SC) in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (Vrs.) Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when the Complainant has received the full amount and gave discharge voucher, he could not raise any Consumer dispute. In such Authority, it has been also clearly held that where insurance claim was settled and received by insured, in absence of any evidence that discharge voucher or receipt has been obtained from Complainant fraudulently or by exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like or coercive bargaining, Consumer complaint would not lie. Further, in the Authority reported in 2003(1) CPR-72 (NC) in the case of M/s. Arora Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Vrs.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi that where insured accepted amount under Policy as settled by Insurance Co. and filed complaint for remaining amount of estimated loss, then unexplained six months period in between acceptance of amount from Insurance Co. and filing of complaint showed that claim was an after-thought and amounted to a Quantum dispute and not a Consumer dispute. In the instant case, nothing has been proved by the Complainant that discharge voucher was obtained by him by fraudulently or by exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like or coercive bargaining. So, for want of this, it cannot be said that O.Ps are at fault in complying the order of the Ombudsman.  

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above authorities as discussed earlier, now this Forum come to the conclusion that this Consumer case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-        

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.1 and 2 and on ex-parte against O.P No.3, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.               

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 21st day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.