Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the Opp. Party No.1 Sri K.C.Agrawal, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.2 sri B.N.Dutta, Adv. & Associates.
Present:- 1. Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President.
2. Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member.
Date of hearing- 19.07.2023 Date of order- 16.08.2023
Presented by, Smt. Anju Agarwal, Member : -
1.The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered owner of a tractor bearing regd. No. OR 23B-3412 having its Engine No. PY30290187875, chassis No. PY51038014507 and trailer vide regd. No. Or 23B-3413 with chassis No. REE420/00 dt. 22.12.2007 , The above said vehicle as sanctioned fort agricultural purpose but unfortunately the said vehicle has been sanctioned for commercial purpose by the state bank of India, SAMADA Branch vide CIF No. 85070249534, vide loan Account No. 35654344245 in the year 2007. On dt. 24.11.2010 the aforesaid vehicle has been seized by the O.P.No.1 . The vehicle was insured by the O.P.No.2 vide policy No. 0000000000755358 of dt.18.02.2015 and the coverage of insurance was from 22.02.2015 to midnight 21.02.2016. As the vehicle was seized by the O.P.No.1 since 24.11.2010, the complainant is deprived off to claim the insurance compensation. The complainant has requested to O.P.No.2 for insurance claim but the O.P.No.2 has rejected the same. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this complaint before this commission.
2. The case of the opposite party No.1 is that the O.P.No.1 has submitted its version and stated that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of section 2(1) (d) (ii) of consumer protection (Amendment) Act,2002. The relationship between the complainant and the O.P. Bank is that of borrower and lender. The O.P.No.1 has sanctioned an agricultural term loan of Rs.5,33,000/ on dt. 16.11.2007 to the complainant vide loan Account No. 30277020585. It was stipulated that the complainant/ borrower will repay the loan amount together with interest in 18 half yearly installments of Rs.30,000/- each. The complainant failed to pay the loan for which the said loan account was classified as NPA on 30.11.2011. The said loan was for the purchased of tractor JOHN DEERS MAKE with regd. No. OR 23B-3412 and trailer OR-23B-3413. For non-payment of loan the O.P.No.1 has given notice for seizure of tractor from time to time on dt 24.11.2020 and 04.12.2020. The said tractor is in possession of the complainant. The complainant never lodged any insurance claim of Rs.2,61,000/ commencing damage to the said hypothecated tractor. The O.P.No.2 has been insured the vehicle for the period from 22.02.2013 to 21.02.2014 and 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015. The complainant has been offered one time settlement of tRs.3,65,000/- but the complainant did not avail the scheme. That the present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any substance and merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The case of the O.P./No.2 is that the O.P.No.2 in its version stated that the case is not maintainable against O.P.No.2. The policy covers accidental damage, third party damage, the complainant had not mentioned date, time place of accident of the insured vehicle but there is not proof regarding this. The O.P.No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence, the O.P.No.2 may be deleted from the complaint petition.
4. Perused the complaint petition , written version along with the materials produced by the parties also heard from the parties along with written arguments it reveals that the complainant had availed loan for agricultural vehicle i.e. tractor JOHN DEERS MAKE with Regd. No. OR 23B-3412 and trailer OR 23B-3413 of Rs.5,33,000/- for a period of 18 half yearly installments of Rs.30,000/- plus interest. As per complaint petition due to non-payment of loan the said vehicle was seized on 24.11.2010. But on dt. 2812.2017, the complainant has written a letter to SBI, General Insurance that the said vehicle is in the house of the complainant. The documents filed by O.P.No.1 reveals civil suit no 66/2016 in the court of civil judge at Jharsuguda has been disposed off regarding the loan.
It seems that the complainant has filed his complaint in the whimsical way. It is the duty of complainant to prove the vehicle accidental damage in order to release the claim from insurance company. There is no documents in the case that vehicle has been damaged in present day/time. As the case has been disposed off in the court of civil judge, with same cause of action(Res-judicata) this commission has no power to entertain this case. Hence, the complaint petition is dismissed.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties. No cost to the complainant.
Order pronounced in open court on 16th August’ 2023. Supply free copies to the parties.
I Agree
J. Mishra, President. A. Agarwal, Member
Dictated and corrected by me
A. Agarwal, Member
