BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 346 of 2014.

                                                         Date of Institution: 12.12.2014.

                                                          Date of Order: 08.02.2019.

Ravinder Kumar son of Shri Ramphal, resident of ward No. 4, Ghikara Road, near Hari Om Ashram, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   …..Complainant.

                    Versus

1.       Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office Dare House IInd Floor, No. 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001 through its Authorized Representative.

2.       Indusind Bank, Consumer Finance Division, upstairs Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rohtak Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri through its Authorized Representative.

…...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri K. R. Sangwan, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Balbir Sharma, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

                   Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 2.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                    Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased a Chassis of Truck bearing chassis No.MAT 448050CSA00452 & Engine No.11M84035954, mark Tata-2518 ten tyres, bearing Temporary No. PB11-AT(T)/7224 on 20.1.2012 from Patiala (PB) and was insured with the OP No. 1 vide cover Note No.6629813 through OP No. 2, as the chassis was financed by OP No. 2.  It is alleged that the Chassis was delivered to the complainant on 20.1.2012 at 6.10 PM.  It is further alleged that the complainant took the chassis at Charkhi Dadri on 21.1.2012 and parked it at Rawaldhi by-pass, Charkhi Dadri in front of the garage of Ramji Lal mistri and the complainant was also sleeping near his chassis for watch.  It is further alleged that the complainant was awaking upto 10.00-11.00 PM and got up at 4.30 AM and was that the 8 tyres and rims were stolen by any person costing Rs.2,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that complainant informed the police of Police Station, Sadar Dadri in this regard and an FIR No. 34 dated 24.1.2012 was registered.  It is further that the complainant has also informed the OP No.1 & 2 about the theft.  It is further alleged that the complainant has served the OP No. 1 a legal notice dated 26.4.2012 through his counsel Shri Satyavir Singh, Advocate Charkhi Dadri and in reply to which the OP No. asked the complainant to provide policy No. of cover note no. or claim no., vide its letter dated 14.5.2012.  It is further alleged that the complainant has provided all the required documents vide letter dated 30.5.2012 through his counsel Shri Satyavir Singh, Advocate Charkhi Dadri, but no action taken by the OP No. 1.  It is further alleged that the complainant has sent reminders to the OP No. 1 on 16.7.2012 and 24.9.2012 through his counsel, but to no effect.  It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased new tyres from Mittal Traders, Charkhi Dadri on dated 8.2.2012 and 9.2.2012 for Rs.1,36,000/- and wheel rims from Aman Motors, Charkhi Dadri for Rs.45,6000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant has got registered the vehicle and registration No. HR61B /0203 was alleged by RTA, Bhiwani.  It is further alleged that the complainant is entitled to make good the loss caused by theft of the tyres and wheel rims of the chassis insured with the OP No. 1 and financed by the OP No. 2 and also to be compensated for harassment and humiliation caused by the OPs.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP No. 1 on appearance filed contested written statement alleging therein that the vehicle as per version of FIR was standing in a un-protected and unsafe place and was unguarded, which creates suspicion regarding theft and the matter was also reported to the police late, whereas it should have been reported immediately and the company should have been informed immediately after occurrence of loss, but no such step was taken by the complainant for a long time, which is violation of policy also, as such complainant is not entitled to any kind of claim from the answering OP.  It is further alleged that no claim is found to be lodged with the company and the FIR was also lodged after delay of two days, which is also fatal to the case, moreover the company was also not informed immediately on occurrence of loss, as such the loss as well as the liability denied in toto.  It is further alleged that the notice served by the complainant was well replied and information from the complainant was demanded, which was never supplied to the answering OP.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                On notice, the OP No. 2 appeared and filed its separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant approached the answering OP with a request to sanction loan of Rs.14,00,000/- for purchase of TATA truck LPT-2515 and the total value of vehicle was Rs.15,30,000/- and request of the complainant was acceded and sanctioned a loan of Rs.14,00,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid by the complainant as margin money of the cost of the vehicle.  It is further alleged that the loan alongwith interest and other incidental charges was to be repaid in 36 installments and agreement in this regard was executed by the complainant at Delhi.  It is further alleged that it has been agreed by the complainant that in case of failure of payment of any installment, he would be liable to pay penal interest @ 36% per annum.  It is further alleged that the vehicle of complainant was insured with OP No. 1 and the insurance premium at the initial stage at the time of purchase of vehicle was paid by the complainant.  It is further alleged that eight tyres and rims of the vehicle of the complainant were stolen, as intimated by him to OP No.1 on 21.1.2012 and the claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP No. 1 and the same was to be paid by the OP No. 1 to answering OP being the financer of the insured vehicle.  It is further alleged that the answering OP is only the financer of the vehicle and it is not liable to pay any insurance claim.  It is further alleged that the loan account of the complainant has been closed on 24.2.2015 and complainant has deposited the entire amount without raising any objection.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.     

4.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C29 in evidence and closed the evidence. 

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 has placed on record documents Ex. R1 & closed the evidence and ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 has placed on record annexure R1 & closed the evidence and ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has further placed on the file copy of the policy wordings of Motor Package (other than Motor Trade) Policy. 

6.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  It is the admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy bearing No. No.3379/00668360/000/00 for a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- w. e. f 20.1.2012 to 19.1.2013. It is undisputed that a theft had taken place on 21.1.2012 and 8 tyres and rims were stolen by any person during the subsistence of insurance policy. Now question arises whether theft of tyres and rims is reimbursable or not? The sought answer is “No” because from the perusal of policy wordings of Motor Package (other than Motor Trade) Policy, in which it has been clearly found mentioned that the Company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of: - “damage to tyres and tubes unless the vehicle insured is damaged at the same time”.  In the present case, only 8 tyres and rims were stolen by any person, but vehicle was neither lost nor damaged, so the claim of the complainant is not covered under the policy.  Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has also placed his reliance upon case titled as Proprietor of Zuber Transport Vs Reliance Gen. Ins., Revision Petition No.1449 of 2012, decided on 22.7.2013 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, in which it has been held that “A plain reading of the terms & conditions indicates that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the loss of tyres and tubes, unless it is a case of total loss of the vehicle.  The insurance company has, therefore, not committed any deficiency in disallowing the claim of the complainant for the loss of tyres etc.  The petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs”.     

          So, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above and in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, the complainant is not entitled to any claim. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 08.02.2019.                 

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.