Haryana

Sonipat

442/2012

SUKHBIR DAHIYA S/O MEHAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. IFFOC TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER MALIK

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                           

                             Complaint No.442 of 2012

                             Instituted on:30.08.2012

                             Date of order:04.09.2015

 

Sukhbir Dahiya son of Mehar Singh, resident of VPO Kidholi Pehladpur, distt. Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. FAI Building 2^nd Floor, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutab Indl. Area, New Delhi,

Second Address-Iffco House, 3^rd Floor, Nehru Place, New through its Manager Incharge.

2.Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. branch office at Balhara Automobiles, Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

        ……..Respondents.

         

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Amit Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

 

           Sh.  HC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1.

          (DEFENCE OF RESPONDENT No.1 STRUCK OFF

 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.06.2015)

         

Sh.  Ravinder Dhiman, Adv. for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of vehicle no.HR10N/3275 and the same was got financed from respondent no.2.  The complainant got the said vehicle insured from respondent no.1 and unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen on 4.9.2009 and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant immediately informed the respondent no.1 about the theft of the said vehicle and fulfilled all the required formalities and submitted all the required documents including the untraced report.  The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 19.2.2010 conveyed that the claim of the complainant has been settled for Rs.55950/-. The complainant on the asking of respondent no.1 prepared the letter of subrogation and applied for transfer of the vehicle, but the said file was returned to the complainant with the objection to submit the HPA cancellation letter from respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 was requested in this regard, who asked the complainant to deposit the whole outstanding amount in lumpsum.  The complainant requested the respondent no.1 to settle the account with the respondent no.2, but of no use.  The respondent no.2 is demanding arbitrary excessive amount form the complainant and are also charging interest/surcharge for the period from the date of theft of the vehicle and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared. But the reply was filed only by the respondent no.2, as due to non-filing of the reply by the respondent no.1, their defence was struck off by this Forum vide order dated 03.06.2015.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant is responsible for insuring the vehicle in question. As on 13.4.2015, an amount of Rs.30752/- towards installments and Rs.70334/- towards other overdue charges accumulated due to non payment of loan installments in time and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount to the respondent no.2.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.  We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the respondent no.2 very minutely and carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant got his vehicle financed from respondent no.2.  The complainant got the said vehicle insured from respondent no.1 and unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen on 4.9.2009 and FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant immediately informed the respondent no.1 about the theft of the said vehicle and fulfilled all the required formalities and submitted all the required documents including the untraced report.  The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 19.2.2010 conveyed that the claim of the complainant has been settled for Rs.55950/-. The complainant on the asking of respondent no.1 prepared the letter of subrogation and applied for transfer of the vehicle, but the said file was returned to the complainant with the objection to submit the HPA cancellation letter from respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 was requested in this regard, who asked the complainant to deposit the whole outstanding amount in lumpsum.  The complainant requested the respondent no.1 to settle the account with the respondent no.2, but of no use.  The respondent no.2 is demanding arbitrary excessive amount form the complainant and are also charging interest/surcharge for the period from the date of theft of the vehicle and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

 

         But during the pendency of the case, today (4.9.2015) ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has made a statement that if the complainant deposits the amount within three weeks, in that event, they will issue him the NOC.

         The perusal of the case file shows that the defence of the respondent no.1 was struck off vide order dated 3.6.2015.

         Accordingly, keeping in view the statement made by respondent no.2, it is directed to the complainant to deposit the amount with the respondent no.2 within a period of three weeks from the date of passing of this order. Similarly, the respondent no.2 is directed to issue the NOC to the complainant within a period of two weeks from the date when the complainant deposits the amount.  The complainant is further directed to submit the said NOC with the respondent no.1 and after receiving the NOC from the complainant, the respondent no.1 is directed to make the payment of Rs.60610/- to the complainant and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Rs.three thousands) for deficiency in service, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 04.09.2015