Date of filing:- 11/10/2017.
Date of Order:-13/05/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 47 of 2017.
Dasharath Sa aged about 37(thirty seven) years son of Tulsi Sa resident of village/Po- Kalapani, Ps. Bargarh Town, Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768028.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., At- Apeejay House, 15 Park Street, Kolkata-700016.
- Bajaj Finance ltd., Pune-Ahmednagar Hwy, behind Hyatt Hotel, Viman Nagar, Pune Maharastra-411014.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri J.Sasangi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri B.Panda, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.13/05/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the owner of a Bajaj Discover 125 CC Motor cycle bearing Chassis No. MD2A57BZ2ERH79220 & Eng No.PAZRE466139 having Regd. No. OD-17-D-3409 and the said vehicle was insured with Opposite Party No.1(one) vide Policy No. 3005/2010792342/00/0000002597 valid from 02-01-2015 to 01-01-2016 and the Complainant had paid of ₹1,213/-(Rupees one thousand two hundred thirteen)only towards insurance premium. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is the financer of the said vehicle. During the validity period on Dt.06-08-2015 at about 6:30 PM the aforesaid vehicle was found missing, accordingly complaint lodged on Dt.07-08-2015 vide Bargarh Town PS Case No. 454 under Section 379 IPC. As the motorcycle could not be traced the case was closed. The Complainant informed to the Opposite Party No.1(one) regarding theft of the vehicle by registering claim No. MOTO4806901 and the Complainant has duly supplied all the documents but the Opposite Party No.1(one) instead of setting the claim issued a letter Dt.12-10-2015, treating the claim as “No Claim” mentioning that the Complainant had parked the vehicle by leaving the key in the vehicle. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has to pay the IDV of the motorcycle of ₹48,248/-(Rupees forty eight thousand two hundred forty eight)only to the Complainant but the Opposite Party No.1(one) by not setting the claim deficient in its service for which the Complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Commission praying that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay insured's declared value of ₹48,248/-(Rupees forty eight lakh two hundred forty eight)only with 12% interest from the date of initiation of the claim before the Opposite Party and ₹30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only towards compensation for harassment, mental agony.
2) The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed its version and submitted that the vehicle bearing Regd No. OD-17-D-3409 of the Complainant was insured with the Opposite Party vide Policy bearing No. 3005-2010792342-00-0000002597 having validity from Dt. 02-01-2015 to 01-01-2016. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy it is the duty of the insured to inform the insurer about the loss of the vehicle immediately but the insured informed the police after one day of the alleged loss. The Complainant had parked the caption vehicle by leaving the key on the ignition point of the vehicle, hence the claim is not maintainable and the Opposite Party treated the claim as no claim. There lies no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one). The case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one).
3) The case of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.2(two) is only a financer is the present transaction and has extended financial assistance to Complainant and as per mutual understanding on 03-01-2015, a loan agreement No. L2WBRG03448789 was executed, the monthly installment as per loan agreement per month is ₹2,874/-(Rupees two thousand eight hundred seventy four)only for the period of 12(twelve) months starting from 12-02-2015 to 12-01-2016. The Complainant has purchased the policy from Opposite Party No.1(one) and not from Opposite Party No.2(two). The Complainant is on due of ₹11,496/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred ninety six)only towards EMI arrear and the amount of ₹35,191/-(Rupees thirty five thousand one hundred ninety one)only towards penal charges, the Complainant has never approached the Opposite Party No.2(two) to raise any concern at any point of time. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has requested the Complainant to regularize the loan dues but the Complainant failed to take any step to regularize/close the said loan amount for which the loan recall notice Dt. 11-12-2015 was sent. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is only a formal party there is no relief sought or allegation. Hence, the complaint to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2(two).
4) Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties as well as oral submission and it revels that the Complainant's vehicle was found missing on Dt. 06-08-2015, complaint was lodged on Dt. 07-08-2015 and the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-D-3409 could not be traced.
5) The aforesaid motorcycle was insured with Opposite Party No.1(one) and the IDV of the vehicle is ₹48,248/-(Rupees forty eight thousand two hundred forty eight)only, the vehicle was found stolen during the validity period of the insurance of the motorcycle. It is the duty of Opposite Party No.1(one) to settle the claim but the Opposite Party No.1(one) failed to settle the claim. Non-settlement of claim during the validity period of insurance amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one).
6) For the negligence of Opposite Party No.1(one), the Opposite Party No.2(two) can not be liable.
Accordingly following order is passed:-
O R D E R
7) The complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and dismissed against Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay ₹11,496/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred ninety six)only to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the rest amount of IDV i.e. (₹36,752/-(Rupees thirty six thousand seven hundred fifty two)only to the Complainant within one month of this Order, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
8) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.13/05/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
