DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-oo0oo-
C.C.CASE NO. 441/2016
Ajit Kumar Pradhan, aged about 35 years,
S/o – Late Nanda Kishore Pradhan,
Village – Jemadei, PO- P.N. College, PS/ Dist- Khurda
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Khurda Branch, 1st Floor, Main Road, Khurda,
At/PO/PS/Dist- Khurda – 752055, through its Branch Manager,
2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., (Claims Hub),
Bhubaneswar Regional Head Office, 1st Floor,
Alok Bharati Towers, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
Through its Regional Manager,
3. Central Bank of India, Khurda Branch,
At- Plot No.2406, Ganpat Man Court Road, Khurda, Odisha – 752055,
PO/PS/Dist- Khurda, through its Branch Manager.
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Mr.K.C.Prusty (Adv.)
For the O.Ps 1 & 2 : Mr.B.Behera & Associates (Adv.)
For the OP.3 : Mr.B.P.Mangaraj & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 24/11/2016
DATE OF ORDER : 29/11/2023
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, he availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP.3 in order to purchase a vehicle namely Bolero. After purchase of the said vehicle, he insured it with the OPs 1 & 2. The insurance was valid from 07/02/2012 to 06/02/2013 and the I.D. value of the said vehicle was Rs.5,10,000/-. On 15/01/2013, the said vehicle was stolen at night while it was parked in front of the house of the complainant. He lodged FIR on 16/01/2013. He also intimated to the insurer about the theft of the vehicle and lodged claim before the OPs 1 & 2. The insurance company demanded certain documents and two numbers of ignition keys. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents and one ignition key but he could not give another ignition key which was kept with the Bank to which the vehicle was hypothecated. However, the OPs insurance company did not settle the claim in favour of the complainant. It is further averred by the complainant that, under such situation, the OP.3 demanded Rs.3,63,695/- from the complainant towards repayment of the loan amount. As the insurance claim was not settled in favour of the complainant, he could not pay that much amount to the OP.3. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OP.3 did not file any written version. OPs 1 & 2 filed written version contending therein that, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locustandi to file this complaint. However, the OPs 1 & 2 admitted that the complainant submitted the relevant documents and one of the ignition keys and the another ignition key which was kept by OP.3, could not be produced before the OPs insurer as the said key was missing during the audit period of the OP.3 Bank and the claim of the complainant could not be settled due to non receipt of 2nd ignition key of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 & 2. Hence it is submitted by the OPs 1 & 2 that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OPs 1 & 2 and if any amount is awarded by the Commission, the same should be borne by the OP.3.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with the OPs 1 & 2. The validity of the insurance period was from 07/02/2012 to 06/02/2013 and the Insured Declared value of the said vehicle was Rs.5,10,000/-. The photocopies of the police papers produced by the complainant indicate that, the complainant lodged FIR at police station on 16/01/2013. A case was registered to this effect. The police conducted investigation and submitted final report stating therein that the fact true but no clue. The competent court also accepted the final report submitted by the police. On going through all these documents, there is no doubt about the fact that the insured vehicle was stolen. The claim was not settled on the ground that one of the ignition keys which was kept with the OP.3 Bank, to which the vehicle was hypothecated, could not be produced before the insurer. That is not all that a valid ground to reject the claim of the complainant. Therefore, on considering the facts & circumstances of the case in entirety, this Commission finds that, the insurance company (OPs 1 & 2) is liable to pay the insured declared value of the vehicle to the complainant. So far as the liability of OP.3 is concerned, being the financier, OP.3 has every right to demand the overdue loan amount. The complainant is bound by the terms & conditions of the agreement to repay the loan as per the terms of the agreement. The personal difficulties of the complainant or any other problem affecting him do not affect the right of the Bank which financed for purchase of the vehicle to demand the overdue amount. For this act of the Bank, no liability can be imposed upon it. Therefore, keeping in view the documents on record and the submissions made by both parties, this Commission finds that, the complaint bears certain merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed exparte against the OP.3 and allowed on contest against the OPs 1 & 2. The OPs 1 & 2 are directed to pay the ID Value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ten thousand) only to the complainant. Besides, the OPs 1 & 2 are further liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OPs 1 & 2 within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OPs 1 & 2 in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 29th November 2023 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
