Haryana

Sonipat

202/2014

ASHOK DHANKHAR S/O ZILE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,2. SUNRISE WHEELS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. TYAGI

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.202 of 2014

                                Instituted on:21.08.2014

                                Date of order:16.07.2015

 

Ashok Dhankar son of Zile Singh, resident of H.No.968/29, Vikas Nagar, Gali no.3, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

1.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. office above Union Bank of India, Delhi road, Sonepat.

2.Sunrise Wheels (P) Ltd. Authorized dealers of TVS Motors Company Plot no.64-65 TP Scheme Delhi road, Sonepat through its Prop.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. S P Tyagi Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ajay Garg Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Respondent no.2 in person.

          

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 therein that he purchased motor cycle form respondent no.2 on 13.6.2012 and the same was got insured with the respondent no.1.  The motor cycle was later-on got registered vide registration number HR10-T/3840.  Unfortunately the said motor cycle was stolen on 12.3.2013 and FIR no.79 dated 13.3.2013 u/s 379 IPC was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant informed the respondent no.1 timely and without any delay.  He also submitted all the required documents including the untraced report.  The Head office of respondent no.1 passed the claim of the complainant to the tune  of Rs.70164/-.  But the respondent no.1 has failed to release the said amount to the complainant 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 respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and they filed their separate reply.

          The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that Bank of Maharashtra is a necessary party, but the same has not been impleaded.  The insurance company has already settled the claim of Rs.70390/-.  The insured got transferred the RC of the vehicle in the name of the respondent no.1.  The insured did not discharge the loan liability and the loan against the vehicle is standing. The respondent no.1 has requested many times to the complainant to get delete HPA of the bank from the RC,  but of no use.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted and affirm that the complainant has purchased the motor cycle from respondent no.2. The disputes are in between the insurance company and the complainant.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that Bank of Maharashtra is a necessary party, but the same has not been impleaded.  The insurance company has already settled the claim of Rs.70390/-.  The insured got transferred the RC of the vehicle in the name of the respondent no.1.  The insured did not discharge the loan liability and the loan against the vehicle is standing. The respondent no.1 has requested many times to the complainant to get delete HPA of the bank from the RC,  but of no use.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the pleadings of the complainant, reply filed by the respondent and evidence led by both the parties in support of their case, we are of the view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          In the present case, the complainant took the objection that the vehicle has been recovered by the PS City Sonepat and the respondent no.1 directed the complainant to take the vehicle on superdari. But it is very sorry state of affairs that the complainant has transferred the vehicle in the name of the insurance company on 30.4.2014.  So, the complainant has no right to get release the vehicle on superdari.

          As per document R7, the financier Bank of Maharashtra, Geeta Bhawan  Chowk, Sonepat has wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd. that the RC of the vehicle no.HR10T/3840 has been transferred in the name of the insurance company.  The financier has further requested to settle the theft claim of the complainant and to remit the funds in the account no.9560100467.

          As per document R8, the Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd has wrote  a letter to the Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra Sonepat that:-

          “This is with reference to your letter no.AR19/UIIC/2014-15 dated 26.5.2014 wherein you have submitted that RC of the above vehicle duly transferred in our company’s name but HPA of bank of Maharashtra was not deleted from RC.  As such, we once again request to your goodself to delete HPA of your bank which has been intimated to you telephonically so that we make the payment of Rs.70390/-.

          So, it is crystal clear that the vehicle has been transferred in the name of the insurance company and an amount of Rs.70390/- is required to be paid by the insurance company to the bank.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that the said amount has not been paid by the insurance company. 

          In the present case, the financier Bank of Maharashtra has not been impleaded by the complainant, but in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 insurance company to transfer the amount of Rs.70390/- in the account no.95601004676 and on receipt of the amount from the insurance company, the complainant shall get delete the HPA of the vehicle in question and shall submit the copy of HPA cancellation with the respondent insurance company.  

          As far as the interest is concerned, the respondent no.1 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum w.e.f. 1.5.14 till realization on the amount of Rs.70390/- because the theft of the vehicle has taken place on 13.3.2013 and the vehicle was transferred in the name of the insurance company on 30.4.2014.  Since it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 as we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.     

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:16.07.2015