Karnataka

Kolar

CC/26/2017

Mahadevappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.N.Srinath

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 25/03/2017

Date of Order: 20/02/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 26 OF 2017

Mahadevappa,

S/o. Rajanna,

Aged About 31 Years,

R/at: Basapura Village,

Thondebavi Hobli,

Gowribidanur Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.                                  ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. P.N. Srinath, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) Bajaj Finance Limited,

No.74, 5^th Cross Road,

J.P. Nagara, 3^rd Phase,

Sarakki Industrial Layout,

Bangalore-78.

(Rep. by Sri. A.V. Ananda, Advocate)

 

2) Reliance Insurance Company

Limited, 2^nd Floor, S.M. Towers,

11^th Main, 3^rd Block,

Jayanagara, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. B.R.Somashekhar, Advocate)    …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter it is referred as “the Act”) has sought relief against OP No.2 as issuance of direction for payment of Rs.71,000/- with interest being the Insurance for theft of the vehicle and also costs has been sought.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, being owner of Bajaj Pulsar-150 CC bearing registration No. KA-04 W-9402 got the same insured with OP No.2 bearing insurance policy No.1405552315824 which was valid from 08.06.2015 to 07.06.2016.

 

(b)    Further he has contended that, he had purchased the said vehicle at Bajaj Show room, Gowribidanur for a sum of Rs.85,000/- and he had paid a sum of Rs.40,500/- as advance and rest of the amount Rs.44,500/- he had availed finance with OP No.1 by mortgaging the said vehicle to OP No.1.  Towards it he had paid nine installments in total Rs.23,994/- to OP No.1.

 

(c)    Further it is contended that, on 03.01.2016 he had parked the said two wheeler in front of his uncle house and went to Gowribidnur Manasa Hospital in auto with his wife and son.  The next day morning his uncle called and informed that, as his vehicle was stolen.  He searched for the vehicle, since not found, he did informed to Manchenahalli PS and Crime No.22/2016 came to be registered for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC.  Ultimately the I.O. could submit “C” report.

(d)    Further it is contended that, he made approach with OP No.2 and had informed orally and requested for claim.  OP No.2 had appointed investigator.  Investigator visited spot and submitted report to OP No.2.  Even though OP No.2 had not paid his claim.

 

(e)    He has further contended that, he had also informed to OP No.1, even though on 04.07.2016 OP No.1 had sent a notice for repayment of loan by misusing the three blank cheques which were collected by OP No.1 which issuance of said finance.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

(f)     The complainant has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Certified copy of FIR in Cr. No.22/2016

(ii) Copy of complaint

(iii) Copy of investigator report

(iv) Copy of Loan statement

(v) Copy of notice issued by Reliance Company

(vi) Copy of letter issue by Reliance Company

(vii) Copy of Registration Certificate

(viii) Copy of Policy

 

03.   In response to the notices issued Ops have put in their appearance through their learned counsel and have submitted written version.

 

(a)    The contention of OP No.1 is that, OP No.1 had issued financial assistance of Rs.63,984/- (including financial charges of Rs.13,484/- for 24 months) for purchase of said two wheeler of complainant.  And specifically denied that, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.44,500/- and also OP No.1 had never received Rs.40,500/- from complainant as he pleaded.  OP No.1 is only financier and the said vehicle is insured with OP No.2.  Thus OP No.1 is not at all liable and responsible for insurance and theft of the vehicle.

 

(b)    It is submission of OP No.1 that, it is sole responsibility of the complainant to ensure the said vehicle is secured against all risk and insurance claim if any pending to be made released only in favour of OP No.1 and an adjustment if any deficit to the said loan account to remit the same against final settlement to OP No.1.

 

(c)    It is further submitted that, as per Clause-23 Insurance

“(a) The Borrower shall be solely responsible for insurance (full cover) of the product including renewal of insurance from time to time and shall insure and keep it insured comprehensively against all risks and such eventualities during the currency of loan period without any delay.  Under no circumstances BFL shall be responsible for insurance of product or for any third party claim that may arise due to accident of the product, at any point of time.”

 

(d)    It is further submitted that, for security purpose OP No.1 had received cheques No. 269135, 269136 and 269139, 269140.  Thus OP No.1 never threatened the complainant and never going to misuse the cheques as alleged in the said complaint. 

 

(e)    OP No.1 submits that, as on 10.05.2017 the complainant is in arrears of Rs.37,324/- towards installment over dues Rs.10,780/- towards other over dues along with Rs.2,666/- towards further installment is also payable by the complainant on 03.06.2016. OP No.1 had issued demand notice to complainant also.  Instead of clearing the dues this complainant has filed present false complaint.  Hence OP No.1 is not a necessary party to this complaint.  So prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs and also sought issuance of directions to complainant to clear outstanding amount as per Annexure-C or to make necessary arrangement to release insurance claim from OP No.2 in favour of OP No.1 and any other order as this forum deems to fit.

 

(f)     The OP No.1 has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copies of Loan Agreement with schedule

(ii) Copy of Loan application form

(iii) Copy of statement of account

(iv) Copy of demand notice

(v) Copy of loan recall notice.

 

04.   The contention of OP No.2 is that, as per the terms and conditions of policy of insurance, notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any incidence.  This complainant had not intimated immediately, as such, the claim of complainant is not maintainable.  Hence there is no negligence of OP No.2 so prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

(a)    No documents has submitted by OP No.2.

 

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

 

06.   The learned counsel for OP No.1 has filed Memo dated: 10.01.2018 submitting to consider the version as its affidavit evidence.

 

07.   On behalf of OP No.2 Sri. Vijaykumar has sworn and submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

 

08.   The learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted written arguments.

09.   Heard oral arguments of both sides.

 

10.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(1) Whether OP No.1 is necessary party to this case on hand?

 

(2) If so, whether is there deficiency in service on part of the Ops with regard to claim of the complainant?

 

(3) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as he sought?

 

(4) What order?

 

11.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Negative

POINT (2):-      In the Affirmative against OP No.2

                           and in the Negative against OP No.1.

POINT (3):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (3):-

12.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

13.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased the said two wheeler from OP No.1 and same got insured with OP No.2 vide policy No. 1405552312015824 which was to cover the period from 08.06.2015 to 07.06.2015.  So the contention of the complainant is that, the said vehicle was subject matter of a theft and concerned police have filed ‘C’ report, hence it would cover the duration of the said Insurance Policy.

14.   On perusal of records it is clear that, OP No.1 is only a financier to the said vehicle and there is no contract between OP No.1 and complainant with regard to insurance.  Since the complaint in hand is for claim of insurance we opined that this OP No.1 is not a necessary party for adjudication of this complaint.  Therefore not necessary to probe in to the discussions of version of OP No.1.  Hence we conclude that this OP No.1 is not a necessary party to this case.  And option is kept open for OP No.1 to approach competent court of law for recovery of the said loan of said vehicle.

 

15.   OP No.2 has very much particular with regard to communication of the said theft to them by the complainant 38 days delayed though the theft had taken place in respect of the said vehicle on 31.01.2016.  Hence as per breach of condition No.1 of insurance policy, claim repudiated.

 

16.   “To render justice suo-moto, it is worth to quote principles enunciated in Revision Petition No. 1362/2011, dated: 01.09.2011 as passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, theft of the tractor therein had taken place on 08.06.2004 and Criminal Case was registered on 21.06.2004 and insurance company was informed only on 25.08.2004.”

 

17.   So we apply the said principles to the case on hand, here what is most important is that, without loss of time there should be information lodged with the police and such information should be immediately after occurrence of theft.

 

18.   There is substantial compliance of the said principles on the part of the complainant, for, theft of the said vehicle was on 31.01.2016 and FIR came to be registered on 04.02.2016.  So the first information came to be registered within statutory period of the occurrence of the said theft.

 

19.   True, the complainant lagged behind in intimating the same to OP No.2 in writing, but he had informed orally as he pleaded.  Here as the complainant has strictly complied statutory requirement of lodging information with police within shortest period, the delay in communicating the same with OP No.2 would loose any significance.  Moreover admittedly the police have submitted final “C” Report dated: 22.02.2017 regarding which the complainant cannot have any adverse say.  As such, information on the part of complainant which was in continuation and confirmation of the FIR dated: 04.02.2016 cannot be termed as delay at all.  Therefore repudiation of claim of complainant by OP No.2 is absolutely deficiency in service on its part.

 

20.   Vide said insurance policy the risk with regard to the said two wheeler covered was in sum of Rs.70,000/- which is claimed in this complaint.  We are of the opinion that, the OP No.2 is liable to pay the same and also compensation.

 

POINT (4):-

21.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed against OP No.2 with cost of Rs.2,000/- as hereunder:-

(a) The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.70,000/- being the claim of insurance policy vide No.1405552315824 of two wheeler Bajaj Pulsar-150 CC with interest at the rate of 9% per from the date of communication of this order till realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for being recovered exclusively by OP No.2.

 

(b)    The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed with no costs.

 

(c)    We grant 30 days time to OP No.2 to comply from the date of communication of this order till realization.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 20^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        PRESIDENT