Biswanath Rath, Member - This is a case against the Insurance Company for the alleged deficiency of service in that the claim was not settled even after lapse of more than seventeen months.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Piyus Gupta who had a valid comprehensive policy for his new Maruti Car informed the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(hereinafter noted as Insurers) on 3.10.1991 that his car was damaged in an accident on 23.9.1991. He filed claim papers in prescribed form three weeks thereafter along with a repair estimate from Mis. Rolta Motors(hereinafter noted as Repairers). He thereafter kept on persuing the matter with the insurers & made over supplementary estimate and final bill presented by the Repairers but did not get relief for which he knocked at our doors for redressal.

3. The complainant's cases originally was both against the Repairers and the Insurers. However, towards the concluding part of the proceedings he made a submission on 6.6.1994 that because of his out-of-court settlement with the Repairers, his case would continue against the Insurers only for the claim money. Meanwhile the Repairers on being called upon to show cause had resisted the allegations of deficiency against them and submitted in their version that there was no negligence at all on their part in as much as, soon after the accidented vehicle was lodged with them by the complainant on 7.10.1991 they presented a preliminary estimate on 12.10.1991, took up repair of the vehicle on instructions of the complainant and after the same was inspected by the Surveyor, and preferred repair bill to the complainant for Rs.71535.49(it is actually Rs.71558.49) on 11.4.1992 after the vehicle was made fit with necessary repairs completed by 31.3.1992 but could not release it because they had not received the payment.

4. The Insurance filed their written statement strongly denying the allegation of deficiency. On the other hand they charged the complainant with an attempt to unnecessarily drag them to an avoidable litigation when the matter was between the complainant and the Repairers. The Insurers submitted that whereas the accident took place on 16.9.1991, the complainant reported it as 23.9.1991 and in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy kept silent for long time and lodged information with them as belatedly as on 3.10.1991. The complainant further violated the policy conditions in that he removed the accidented vehicle from the accident spot without prior know ledge of and clearance from them thus depriving the Insurers of the opportunity of conducting spot survey. They however promptly issued claim form on 4.10.1991, appointed surveyor immediately so that he started his survey on 29.10.1991, considered the estimates including the first estimate and subsequent two supplementary estimates as well as the survey report, sat in conciliation meeting with the complainant and the Repairers as ordered by this Commission and later offered to the complainant to settle the claim for Rs.45440/- subject to his submission of discharge voucher and stamped receipts/money receipts given by Repairers in support of repairs having been undertaken.

5. The complainant has supplemented his petition with further evidence filed with affidavits dtd. 19.7.1993, & 23.9.1993. He has also examined himself on 2.9.1994. He has filed xerox copies of correspondence with the Repairers and the insurers and also filed copies of related documents from the Andhra Bank,(his financiers) with whose finance he claims to have purchased the subject-car in question. Sri Debasis Das, the learned Counsel for the complainant has vigorously argued the complainant's case and filed written submission on 21.7.1993, 3.12.1993 and 23.12.1993. Till 6.6.1994, when he filed a Memo saying that consequent upon an out-of-court settlement made by him with the Repairers and hence he no more had any claim against them, he had allegations of negligence and deficie