JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful plaintiff of the Money Suit No. 224 of 1997 (Title Suit No. 54 of 95) on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Cuttack has filed this appeal questioning the dismissal of the suit for realization of her money claim with interest from the defendant. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court. 3. The plaintiff’s case is that she has purchased a vehicle i.e. Matador-III van bearing Registration No. OAX 8997 with manufacturing year 1987 from its original owner one Jagat Jivan Sahu for her own use and for use in her business. The purchase is said to have been made on 22.6.1991. The vehicle in question had been duly insured with the defendant for the period commencing on and from 28.12.1990 till 27.12.1991. The Insurance Policy is said to be a comprehensive one. The plaintiff having purchased the vehicle, the policy of insurance stood transferred in her name. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said vehicle met an accident on 28.1.1991 at about 1 A.M. while proceeding from Bhubanswar to Khurda on the National Highway No. 5 near village-Ogalpada. It is stated that in view of extreme slippery condition of the road because of the extensive spreading of engine oil from some other vehicle running on the road, the vehicle suddenly skidded and the driver then could not further control and in the process it, got dashed against a stationary truck on the road side. On account of said dash, the vehicle in question was severly damaged and the driver also sustained injures. The plaintiff having received such information sent her husband to the spot to ascertain the truth of such information. It was found that the accident had taken place. Therefore, the plaintiff’s husband lodged a written report at Janla Police Outpost which was noted in the station diary maintained there. The Police Officer in-charge of the said Outpost visited the spot and investigated the case. It was also informed to the defendant on 28.11.91. Therefore, the plaintiff advanced her claim with the defendant for such damage caused to the vehicle in that accident. Surveyor and Loss assessor being deputed by the defendant inspected the damaged vehicle on 30.1.91. The Police Officer in-charge of the said Outpost visited the spot and investigated the case. It was also informed to the defendant on 28.11.91. Therefore, the plaintiff advanced her claim with the defendant for such damage caused to the vehicle in that accident. Surveyor and Loss assessor being deputed by the defendant inspected the damaged vehicle on 30.1.91. It is stated that he removed the damaged vehicle to a motor garage at Bhubaneswar stating said garage to be the approved garage of defendant-Insurance Company for the purpose of repairing the damaged vehicles so insured. The vehicle of the plaintiff was then taken to the said garage and kept there. It is said that the garage owner in whose custody the damaged vehicle remained is an agent of the defendant for the purpose. The Surveyor and Loss Assessor first submitted his inspection report on 6.12.91 to the Branch Office of the defendant describing the details of the damage of parts of the vehicle having carried out the inspection at the spot. There was again deputation of another Surveyor and Loss Assessor by the defendant to note the particulars of the damaged vehicle and also to indicate as to which parts of the damaged vehicle require replacement and which are usable after repair. The final assessment of the loss caused to the damaged vehicle by the said Surveyor and Loss Assessor deputed by the defendant stood at Rs.23,000/-. It is now said that because of the dispute, the damaged vehicle thus continued to remain in garage and for the same it got completely damaged reducing its value to nil. This is said to have been caused because of lack of proper care on the part of the garage owner who according to the case of the plaintiff stands in the position of bailee. Thus now the claim has been laid for the total price of the vehicle in question and that is sought to be recovered from the defendant –Insurance Company. The loss has been assessed by the plaintiff at Rs.1,10,000/-in so far as the vehicle is concerned. The plaintiff having not stopped there has also advanced a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000/-towards mental agony as also for the loss sustained in the business where the vehicle was required to be put to use. The loss has been assessed by the plaintiff at Rs.1,10,000/-in so far as the vehicle is concerned. The plaintiff having not stopped there has also advanced a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000/-towards mental agony as also for the loss sustained in the business where the vehicle was required to be put to use. The total claim thus comes to Rs.2,65,000/-which is sought to be realized by a decree of the court as prayed for being so passed. It is however stated that as the plaintiff had earlier knocked the door of the State Consumer Redressal Dispute Commission, Odisha by filing C.D.Case No. 69/93 and as per the order of the Commission, he has received Rs.23,000/-with interest and since the Commission had given her further liberty to take appropriate action for realization of compensation for total loss of vehicle, the suit has come to be filed. 4. The defendant in the written statement coming contest the suit has gone to traverse the plaint averments as averred in each of the paras of the plaint. It has been specifically stated that the vehicle was insured by its owner, Jagatjivan Sahu as it stood recorded in R.C. book. It is stated that said transfer of the vehicle by Jagatjivan to the plaintiff was not done with the knowledge of that defendant-Insurance Company. There was also no compliance of the provision of subsection (2) of Section 157 of the M.V. Act and no such application was submitted either by the original insurer or by the purchaser-plaintiff. The date of transfer as stated by the plaintiff is said to be false and concocted. The transfer of insurance policy said to have been made only on 27.11.1991 and it is said to have been made by way of suppression of material facts as by then the vehicle had already met the accident which if would have been known to the defendant, the transfer would not have been so permitted. Thus it is said that there was no contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such there arises no liability on the part of the defendant. Many more facts have been pleaded besides repetitions of the facts and allegations concerning transfer of insurance policy. Thus it is said that there was no contract of insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such there arises no liability on the part of the defendant. Many more facts have been pleaded besides repetitions of the facts and allegations concerning transfer of insurance policy. Next coming to the estimation of damage for the vehicle made by the second Surveyor, the same is asserted to be reflecting the correct picture, taking all such required factors into consideration and viewing the actual damage to the part of the vehicle as caused in the said accident. It is further stated that the plaintiff purposeful delayed the matter by not producing the documents as required and avoided to receive the amount as found payable for such damaged vehicle as per the final surveyor’s report. The defendant denied any further liability with regard to the said damaged vehicle as also for the damage if any, during its stay in the garage. It is said that the garage owner is not their agent nor the bailee. Their case is that the plaintiff had kept the vehicle in the said garage so as to facilitate the inspection by the Surveyor and he when has not removed the same nor taken the vehicle to her custody, for any loss if any thereafter caused to the plaintiff on account of damage to the vehicle during the period, the defendant-Insurance Company not be saddled with the liability and it has to be shouldered by the plaintiff herself. 5. With all these pleadings, the defendant prayed to non-suit the plaintiff stating further that amount having already been paid as per the vehicle survey report, nothing more is payable to the plaintiff. 6. Faced with the rival pleadings, the trial court framed in total seven issues. Going to answer issue no. 5. With all these pleadings, the defendant prayed to non-suit the plaintiff stating further that amount having already been paid as per the vehicle survey report, nothing more is payable to the plaintiff. 6. Faced with the rival pleadings, the trial court framed in total seven issues. Going to answer issue no. 4, 5 and 6 which are the important issues concerning the purchase of the vehicle and transfer of its ownership in favour of the plaintiff without the knowledge of the defendant and without being in compliance of provision under Section 157 of the M.V. Act and the insurance policy along with other two issues concerning the obligation of the defendant to repair the vehicle and at last the exercise of ascertaining the entitlement of the plaintiff in terms of money towards the damage from the defendant has gone to record the decision against the plaintiff in finally saying that there does arise no further entitlement of the plaintiff so as to be favoured with the decree for recovery of sum of Rs.2,65,000/-from the defendant with interest. 7. Now it is said that the vehicle has been totally damaged. The claim of the plaintiff therefore is concerned with the Insured’s total estimated value made at the time of commencement of the contract of insurance with the defendant. So the point for determination comes as to whether the defendant in the admitted facts and circumstances that shortly after the accident, the vehicle was lying in the garage and accepting that it has been totally damaged because lapse of time even say for the delay being caused by the defendant by resorting dilly dally tactics in settling the claim, whether the plaintiff is to get the price of the vehicle as taken and accepted by the defendant at the time of getting the vehicle insured. Before going to search the answer to the above formulated point, it is pertinent to state here that the defendant although stated so many things as regards the transfer of policy of insurance that such transfer was by way of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff yet said plea is seen to have been given a good-bye from the beginning which can be well seen from t he very fact that upon receipt of the information from the plaintiff about the accident, the defendant being the insurer has immediately sprang into action by deputing their Surveyor and Loss Assessor. When that has been the response of the defendant and not only that but all the follow up actions with repeated correspondences there remains no scope of making all those allegations and banking upon the same so as to avoid the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, all these factual aspects stand as redundant for the purpose of the suit. 8. Here the claim being for the total loss of the vehicle while in the garage after the accident, the question comes as to whether the insurer under the policy of the insurance would carry liability for the same which has taken place as have been pleaded by the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose has strenuously placed reliance the decision of the Apex Court in Case of N.R.Srinivasa Iyer vs. New Indian Assurance Company Limited: AIR 1983 (SC) 899 . At the stage it may be mentioned that the trial court has taken a view that the suit is barred by limitation. So to counter that the learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of the Apex Court in case of P.Sarathy vs. State Bank of India: AIR 2000 SC 2023 in placing that there has to be exclusion of time spent in the State Consumer Redressal Commission since the plaintiff was pursuing the proceeding there bonafide. So to counter that the learned counsel for the appellant has placed the decision of the Apex Court in case of P.Sarathy vs. State Bank of India: AIR 2000 SC 2023 in placing that there has to be exclusion of time spent in the State Consumer Redressal Commission since the plaintiff was pursuing the proceeding there bonafide. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contends that the principles of law as laid down in case of N.R.Srinivasa Iyer (supra) are not getting attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the facts and circumstances of the cited cases are completely different and therefore on the basis of said legal principles, the claim of the appellant therein having been allowed by the Apex Court, the same do not help the plaintiff in the instant case. 10. In the cited case of N.R.Srinivasa Iyer (supra), the car which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company had been destroyed in fire and the insured had thus suffered the damage. Therefore, the car had been taken to the repairing workshop and left there intimating the Insurer to discharge its obligation under the policy of insurance. The repairer then having made the estimate of the loss forwarded to the insurer. After further correspondence, the Insurer accepted the estimate of repairer by lessening it by little extent. The insurer informed the insured to proceed with the repairing work under the said repairer who had given the estimate and sent the final bill together with the discharge voucher duly filed in and signed for making necessary payment. When the car was lying there, the fire occurred in the workshop of the repairer and thus the car got totally destroyed. In that factual scenario, the question arose as to whether for loss on account of the damage occurring in the fire when the car was in custody of the repairer under whom the insured was to get the car repaired as directed by the insurer after accepting the estimate of that very repairer up to a particular limit, let us specifically say as little less then the estimation, the insurer would be held liable or not. The Apex Court applying the legal principles as enshrined in section 148 to Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act found the insured liable to pay. The Apex Court applying the legal principles as enshrined in section 148 to Section 151 of the Indian Contract Act found the insured liable to pay. The following expressions of the Apex Court as stated hereinafter are very important and relevant for the purpose. It has been said that from the scene of accident when the car has been taken to the nearest repairer, the insurer in that case had not taken an obligation to reimburse the insured for the expenses so incurred for said removal which implies that the duty of the insured was there and it was obligatory on his part to remove the car to the nearer repairer and this duty performed by the insurer was not on his own but on behalf of the insurer and for that reason the insured is entitled to be reimbursed with said expenses. This obligation having arisen under the contract of the Insurance and on behalf of the insurer the same implies that the insured also put the damaged car with the nearest repairer and thus the car virtually was in the custody of the insurer and repairer took the custody on behalf of the insurer. Therefore, the liability ultimately has been thrust upon the insurer. Moreover, another factor has been taken note of that there was direction by the insurer for getting the repair work done particularly by that repairer who had given the estimate which was accepted in part. So under no circumstances the insured could have taken the car to any other repairer for getting the same repaired and if he would have recourse to that the settlement of the claim with the insurer as arrived at would have been totally frustrated and that its would have given rise to another dispute. No aid is flowing from the decision to come to the rescue from the plaintiff in the present suit in so far as her claim with regard to the total damage to the vehicle is concerned. Here is a case where it is not said that the vehicle had been taken to the repairer under the direction of the defendant or anybody on its behalf. The accident having taken place on 28.11.1991, the first Surveyor has inspected the damaged vehicle at the spot on 30.11.1991. It is not said that he directed for removal of the vehicle to the said repairer. Exts. The accident having taken place on 28.11.1991, the first Surveyor has inspected the damaged vehicle at the spot on 30.11.1991. It is not said that he directed for removal of the vehicle to the said repairer. Exts. 1 and 2 the letters of plaintiff dated 29.1.1992 and 10.3.1992 respectively or any other correspondence from her side or from the side of the defendant do not so reveal. The plaintiff has submitted the Motor Accident Report in the printed form and that is Ext. G, which does not so indicate about the removal of the vehicle to the repairer under the direction of the defendant or anyone on their behalf. Rather, the letter of the repairer, Ext. 8 go to show that all that those were by the plaintiff and the defendant had played no role. Even by the time, the vehicle got totally damaged, the claim of the plaintiff had not been settled. Thus, the garage owner cannot be said to have been in custody of the vehicle for and on behalf of the defendant so as to say for a moment that the vehicle virtually had remained under the custody of the defendant-Insurance Company. 11. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the claim of the plaintiff towards total damage of the vehicle to the tune of the sum as taken by the defendant-Insurance Company as the price of the vehicle as per the insurance policy falls flat. This being the answer to the point formulated above for determination as mandated under law for the first appellate court, this Court feels that it would be of no practical avail to examine the sustainability of the finding of the trial court on the technical issue as regards the limitation. 12. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed and in the facts and circumstances without cost.