Orissa

Cuttak

CC/55/2015

Mrs Chandra Mitra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T K Mohanty & associates

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.55/2015

 

Mrs. Chandra Mitra,

W/O:Bijoy Kumar Mitra,

R/O:Gopal Jew Lane,Choudhury Bazar,

Cuttack-753001.                                                                             ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

At:Mahjanadi Vihar,Cuttack-753004.

 

 

2.        The Manager,

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

At:Gitanjali Complex,Flat No.2863/3719,Lewis Road,

Bhubaneswar,Odisha-751002....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    21.05.2015

Date of Order:  16.06.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. T.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1.       :          Mr. J.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2.       :          Mr.R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

                                                             

            Case of the complainant in nutshell is that she is the owner of one TATA LPT 2515 CUMMINS FBT vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AB-8780 which she had purchased with finance from the O.P Company bearing Policy No.10003/31/13/616346 to the tune of Rs.9,45,000/- and the tenure for repayment of the loan was from 5.5.14 to 5.2.19.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.10.13 while going to Jamshedpur and the vehicle was severely damaged for which it was not in a condition to run.  Since because the vehicle was under insurance on the said date of accident, the complainant informed the O.P insurer about the incident for which the O.Ps had deputed one Sanjay Kumar as surveyor.  The said Sanjay Kumar, surveyor had visited the spot, taken photographs, advised the complainant to carry the vehicle to the garage for further inspection.  The complainant had spent a sum of Rs.16,000/- by hiring the crane  in order to lift her, damaged vehicle from the spot to the garage.  At the garage the claim was made for Rs.1,10,000/- whereas the O.P had sanctioned a paltry sum of Rs.21,000/- only.    The complainant wrote a letter to the O.P on 13.10.13 stating about the estimate and expenditure of her damaged vehicle and to provide the full amount but the O.Ps had not settled the claim as made by her.  All the bills were submitted to the O.Ps vide letter of the complainant dt.17.2.14 as desired.  The complainant had again written to the O.Ps on 26.2.14 for settling the claim.  The O.Ps without settling the claim had written to the complainant by virtue of their letter dt.15.10.14 asking her to clear the arrear instalments amounting to Rs.1,55,000/- within a period of 15 days.  The complainant being harassed had sent a legal notice to the O.Ps on 25.4.15 for settling the claim as made by her.  Ultimately when the O.Ps did not listen to her claim, the complainant has filed this case demanding the insurance claim amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards the damage of the vehicle together with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the mental agony and torture coupled with humiliation and harassment.

            The complainant has submitted copies of certain documents in support of her claim.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their written versions separately.  According to the written version of O.P No.1, the complaint as filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  According to O.P No.1, the complainant is not a consumer, there was no deficiency in service, the case as filed is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.   Of course O.P No.1 admits about the complainant to be the owner of the said vehicle, about the finance given to her and her loan-cum-hypothecation agreement bearing No.CUTKO403240003 dt.25.3.2014.  The complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.16,25,459/- in 45 number of instalments with effect from 5.5.14 to 5.2.19.  O.P No.1 admits about the damage of the vehicle in accident on 12.10.13 and to have deputed one surveyor namely Sanjay Kumar according to whom settlement was to be made of Rs.21,000/- and not Rs.1,10,000/- as claimed.  Thus it is prayed by O.P NO.1 in his written version to reject the complaint petition which is devoid of any merit.

            According to the written version of O.P No.2, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost being not maintainable.  The claim was settled for a sum of Rs.21,000/- on the basis of the survey report and thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  O.P No.2 admits about the purchase of the vehicle, the finance incurred by the complainant, about the accident and damage of the vehicle of the complainant and about the settlement of the claim as made by the O.Ps as per the assessment made by the surveyor Sanjay Kumar which was reported.  Thus according to O.P No.2, the complaint petition being not maintainable when there is no deficiency in service; is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

            Both the O.Ps have also filed copies of documents in support of their pleas.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out from the complaint petition of the complainant and also from the contents of the written versions of both the O.Ps, this Commission is of view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at proper conclusion in this case.

 

            i.          Whether the complainant of this case is a consumer?

            ii.         Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits as claimed?

Issue no.1.

            Issue no.1 is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            The complainant had insured his vehicle before the O.P Company which is damaged.  Thus his vehicle being the insured one by the insurer O.P Company, the complainant is naturally the consumer.  Accordingly this is answered.

Issue No.2 &.3.

            For the sake of convenience these two issues are taken up together for consideration.

            It is the claim of the complainant that against the estimated cost of damage to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-, a sum of Rs.21,000/- only was settled by the O.Ps.  Annexure-1 as filed by the complainant the copy of the policy of insurance reflects that the insurance of the vehicle of the complainant was effective from 22.1.13 to the midnight of 21.1.14.  Aannexures-2,3 & 4 are copies of letters written and sent by the complainant to the O.P No.1 for settling her claim and Aannexure-5 is the copy of letter of reminder to O.P No.1 to settle the claim.  The complainant has submitted a series of money receipts and bills to support her claim amount.  To counteract, the O.Ps have filed copy of the survey report of the said surveyor Sanjay Kumar vide Annexure-C which goes to show that after assessment, the said surveyor Sanjay Kumar had settled the claim to the tune of Rs.21,000/-.  The surveyor being the best person who had visited the spot, inspected the damaged parts of the vehicle in question, could assess the damage/loss to the extent of Rs.21,000/- only.  Thus, there is nothing to raise suspicion and the said survey report as submitted by the surveyor Sanjay Kumar who was deputed by the O.Ps for settling the claim as made by the complainant.  The complainant has filed a copy of the letter written by the O.Ps claiming the arrear instalments from him vide Annexure-6.  In this case it can be held here that when there was default notice by the O.Ps to the complainant for repaying the instalments as due from her to the O.P Company was sent and the same letter has no role to play in the present case.

            Of course, the complainant was unhappy when the claim to the fullest extent as made by her was not settled but when the surveyor is the competent person to decide about the loss or damage of her vehicle, this Commission cannot caste aside the report of the surveyor without any cogent and contradictory evidence.  Accordingly this Commission is of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and thus, the case as filed by the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues are answered against the complainant.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, it can be concluded here that the complainant is not entitled to the benefits as made by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                               ORDER

            The case is disposed of on contest without be decreed and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th  day of June,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.