Date of Filing: 16.01.2009<br /> Date of Order: 05.01.2011<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 157 OF 2009<br /> Rathish Kumar<br /> S/o. Prem K Nair<br /> R/at 02, Nandi Nivas, Vinayaka Nagar<br /> BTM 4th Stage, B.G. Road<br /> Bangalore 560 076 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.<br /> 29, 1 & 2 Floor, “Anugraha”<br /> Swimming Pool Ext., P G Halli<br /> Main road, 12th Cross, Malleswaram<br /> Bangalore 560 003<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co.<br /> # 28, Centenary Building, 5th Floor<br /> Bangalore 560 001<br /> <br /> 3. M/s. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.<br /> (Registered / Head Office)<br /> Akudi, Pune<br /> <br /> 4. M/s. Kalyani Bajaj<br /> Unit of Kalyani Motors<br /> # 07, Achaiah Shetty Layout<br /> RMV Extension, Hebbal Road<br /> Bangalore 560 080 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Sri Balakrishna V. Masali<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that on 01.07.2007 the complainant was purchased a vehicle Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC Chessis No. MD 2 DH DH 22 PCC 39928 Engine No. DHG BPC 7809 Model 2007 black colour from the opposite party No. 4 a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and entering into an hypothecation agreement with the opposite party NO. 1 on a monthly EMI amount of Rs. 2,103 for a period of 33 months on the said day of purchase he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- by way of cash at the time of delivery of the vehicle totally Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 on the same day that is on 11.07.2007 the vehicle was got registered in his name bearing registered KA 04 EU 8898 on 11.07.2007 he entered into an insurance policy with opposite party No. 2 for a declared value of Rs. 54,896/- with premium of Rs. 1,341/- on 20.10.2007 at night the said vehicle was stolen by some person which he cane to know at the next morning he immediately lodged a complaint before the Hulimavu police station which was registered crime No. 212/2007. The aid copy of FIR was also served to the opposite party No. 2 on 22.10.2007 and the same was got endorsed on the complainant on 25.07.2008. The concerned police station had filed the ‘C’ report on 19.08.2008. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and claimed his vehicle insurance he was forced to go with the settlement and subsequently, a settlement was jumped for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- between him and opposite party No. 2. The complainant to sign the settlement agreement dated 19.08.2008 the opposite party No. 2 came with a new painful surprise for the complainant saying that after the unlawful deduction of Rs. 10,896/- from the actual insurance sum amount of Rs. 54,896/-. Hence, direct the opposite party No. 2 to pay the complainant the balance insurance amount of Rs. 10,896/- and direct the opposite party No. 1, 3 and 4 to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- as unliquidated damages for the mental trauma and stress. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties by RPAD. The opposite parties appeared through their advocate and filed defence version. The opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 submit that the complainant does not disclose the any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party i.e. the Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. and hence, on this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has entered into Finance agreement No. 404/172982 on 12.07.2007 and availed finance of Rs. 55,000/- for the purchase of Bajaj Pulsar the monthly installment to be paid per month is Rs. 2,103/- the contract period of 33months. The opposite party submits that the complainant has alleged that Reliance general Insurance Company has sent a claim amount of Rs. 44,500/- to the Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Pune Head Office and the complainant without impleading the necessary party to complaint after going through the complainant account and as per terms of loan agreement an amount of Rs. 44,500/- received from the insurance company by the Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. the insurance amount of Rs. 44,500/- is adjusted towards loan outstanding dues an amount of Rs. 23,240/- is due from the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence, complaint may be dismissed and opposite party No. 2 submitted that the vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 2 for loss of vehicle this opposite party No. 2 has settled the claim for sum of Rs. 44,000/- through cheque to the opposite party No. 1 the opposite party No. 1 is the financier of the complainant to purchase the vehicle. This opposite party No. 2 not aware of any other transaction of the complainant with opposite party No. 1 and 3. The opposite party No. 2 submits as per the complaint it is dispute between complainant and opposite party No. 1 & 3. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No. 2.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of the complainant and opposite parties filed.<br /> 4. Perused the affidavit and documents.<br /> 5. The point for consideration is:<br /> Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 6. Perused the complaint, version and documents. It is an admitted fact that on 01.07.2007 complainant purchased two wheeler Bajaj Pulsar 150 CC bearing registered No. KA 04 EU 8895 and complainant availed the loan with opposite party No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 55,000/-, the said amount is payable on monthly instalment of Rs. 2,103/- for 33 instalment on 11.07.2007 the said vehicle insured with opposite party NO. 2 for period of 11.07.2007 to 10.07.2008, insured declared value of Rs. 54,896/- on 20.10.2007 at night the said vehicle was stolen. Complainant came to know at the next morning on 21.10.2007 the complainant lodged complaint before the Hulimavu Police Station which was registered as crime No. 212/2007 further, the complainant submits that the said copy of FIR was also served to the opposite party NO. 2 on 22.10.2007 and the same was got endorsed on the complainant coy from the opposite party NO. 2 on 25.07.2008 the Hulimavu Police Station had filed the ‘C’ report for not tracing the said vehicle. On 19.08.2008 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and claimed his vehicle insurance in claim No. 207191456 but because of his financial problem he was forced to go with the settlement and subsequently a settlement was made a sum of Rs. 44,000/- between complainant and opposite party No. 2 and the claimed settlement was reduced to writing on a stamp paper by the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 submits there version the complainant vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 2. For loss of vehicle this opposite party No. 2 has settled the claim for sum of Rs. 44,000/- through cheque to the opposite party No. 1, the opposite party No. 1 is the financier of the complainant to purchase the vehicle. On 06.12.2010 the opposite party No. 2 has endorsed in the order sheet as per the policy opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay Rs. 10.896/- to the complainant and already paid Rs. 44,000/-. it shows that the opposite party has agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,896/- to the complainant because the said vehicle was insured with opposite party No. 2 and insured declared value is Rs. 54,896/-. It is clearly shows that the opposite party No. 2 made gross negligence to the complainant for non-settling his claim. That the relation between the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 and the complainant is that of a creditor and debtor and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite parties and the prayer made by the complainant to direct the opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4 to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- as unliquidated damages for mental trauma and stress. Since, there is no document or proof for the same the complainant cannot claim for this unliquidated damages. So under these circumstances it is just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite party NO. 2 to settle his claim of Rs. 10,896/-. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complainant is allowed. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,896/- to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 shall comply the order within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> 8. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party No. 2.<br /> 9. The opposite party is directed to the send the above ordered amount directly to the complainant by way of Cheque/D.D. with intimation to this forum.<br /> 10. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost immediately.<br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />