IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1. Shri Jiban ballav Das, President,

                                                                           2.  Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member.                      

                                                                            3.  Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member

                                             Dated the 25th day of  September,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 29  of 2019.

Arabinda Sahoo   , S/O Chaitanya Sahoo    

Vill/Jamupasi , P.O. Ampolba ,P.S.  Sukinda    

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

1. The Manager,Hinduja Leyland Finanace,At.Corporate office no.27A

Developed Industrial Estate,Guindy,Chennai.

2. Branch Manager,Hinduja Leyland Finance,At.Neulpur, P.O.Chandikhole,P.S-Dharmasala,Dt.Jajpur.

      3.    The Manager,Chola MS General Insurance Company, At. Bhubaneswar Office

             Floor-746,Hotel Basera,Ashok Nagar,Janapath,Bhubaneswar,Dt.Khurda

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                 

For the Complainant:                            Sri P.K.Dhal, Sri P.K.Das, Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2           Sri B.K.Tripathy, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties ;No.3                       None.  

                                                                                                     Date of order:    25 . 09. 2020.

SHRI  JIBAN  BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT   .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps mainly against O.p.no.1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service.

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner has purchased a A L DOST L S vehicle on 11.03.2017 bearing No.OD-04-J-6910 by availing loan of  Rs.514920/-from  O.P.no.1 and 2. At the time of availing the loan the O.P.no.1 and 2  insured  the vehicle with O.p.no3 for the period 14.3.2017 to 13.03.2018. It is alleged by the petitioner that prior to expiry of the policy date i.e 13.03.2018 though it was the duty of O>p.no.1 and 2 to inform the petitioner for renewal of policy but due to non receipt of any information  from O.P.1 and 2 the petitioner though himself  renewed the policy on 14.03.2018  paying the Insurance premium of Rs.19797/- and the said policy was valid from 14.03.18 to 13.03.19 but it is the matter of great regret that the O.P.no.1 and 2 without the knowledge of the petitioner has debited Rs.26,290/- from the account of the petitioner. In such situation the petitioner though intimated the O.p.mo.1 and 2 but to no result .Hence finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O>p no.1 and 2 to return the debit money along with the O.P.no.1 and2 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for deficiency in service .

            After receipt of the notice the O.P.no.1 and 2 have appeared through their learned advocate  and filed the written version in support of their defence. The main defence taken by O.P no.1 and 2  are that :

a.The present dispute is not maintainable as there is no pleading in the complaint petition  that the above cited  vehicle is to maintain the lively hood by means of self employment of the petitioner  in absence of which the vehicle shall be treated as commercial purpose.

b. As the petitioner has availed the loan of Rs.5,14,920/- for the above cited vehicle having the contact value Rs.7,01,841/- it was the duty of O.p.no.1 and 2 ( financer) to insured the vehicle only to safe guard the loan amount which has been paid to the petitioner in shape of loan. Accordingly as per request of the petitioner the O.p.no.1 and 2 has paid Rs.24,000/- as insurance premium for the period 2^nd and 3^rd and 4^th year insurance to the Insurance company.

C. Further it is stated by O.p.no.1 and 2 that after availing the loan ,though it was the duty of the petitioner to repay the loan amount but at present the petitioner is a chronic defaulter for which demand notice dt.19.06.2018 has been sent to the petitioner.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from  both the learned advocates. After perusal of the record we are inclined to hold that the present dispute is liable to be dismissed for the ground stated  below:

            There is no pleading in the complaint petition that the petitioner has purchased the alleged vehicle only to maintain his livelihood by means of self employment in absence of which the vehicle shall be treated 5/* as commercial vehicle. Hence this case is not maintainable in this Commission in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(1) CPR-445-N.C and 2015(2)CPR-174-N.C

Further  it can not be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.1 and 2  in insuring the above cited  vehicle paying Rs.24,000/-  since the insurance is only  to safe guard the financed amount.

O R D E R

            The dispute is dismissed against the O.ps  on contest without awarding any compensation. No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th  day of  September,2020. under our  hand and seal of the Commission .