CC No.1589/2018

Orders on Maintainability

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a new Hyundai Car on loan and Hypothecated the same with Op.No.2 i.e., Cholamandalam Investment and finance Co. Ltd., and the vehicle was registered at RTO Bangalore as bearing No.KA-02-AF-7775. The said vehicle was insured for the period from 30/09/2016 to 29/09/2017 with Op.  His vehicle was hired by unknown passenger to go to Nellor they requested the complainant to stop the vehicle as they wanted to attend the nature call. When the complainant stopped the car, all of a sudden the two passengers sprinkled some chemical on complainant’s face and escaped with the motor car. Therefore, the complainant approached Marripadu police who in turn informed to approach the concerned jurisdictional police station at Bangalore, from where the two passenger had hired the motor cab.  When he approached the jurisdictional police station at Bangalore they declined to register the complaint, and directed the complainant to approach where the incident took place. As such, the complainant lodged the complaint at Marripadu police station. Thereafter he lodged the claim in respect of the theft of motor car with Op.1 on 24.06.2017.  After lapse of few days the said vehicle was traced during November 2017 and the same was seized by Marripadu police and asked the complainant to bring the key and necessary documents and also local surety to get the vehicle released. In the meanwhile OP.1 and OP.2 gave reply to the notice with regard to the claim made by the complainant. In the said reply the Op.2 categorically admitted that the OP.1 had repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was subsequently recovered by the police, are the claim made by the complainant is not valid one and same is discarded. Hence this complaint.

On perusing the complaint and documents produced by the complainant it clearly reveals that the OPs have taken contention in there reply notice that the said vehicle was not stolen but it was robbed by two person by sprinkling chemical on the face of complainant. It clearly comes within the ambit of robbery not and under theft. Further it is clear from the complaint that the vehicle was traced out and same was informed to the complainant to get back his vehicle by producing necessary document along with required surety. The complainant failed to comply the instructions given by the police authorities. When the vehicle is very much available for the use of complainant, the question of honoring claim made before the insurance company do not survive at all.  The law prohibits to make un law full gain on false ground of theft. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs, is made out. The claim of the complainant is illegal, unrighteous, made for un law full gain without there being just and proper cause. We deem it as the complaint is frivolous vexatious and filed for illegal gain. Hence deserves to be dismissed.  Hence the complaint is hereby dismissed with a exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. This amount shall be deposited to the legal service authority of this Forum.

MEMBER           PRESIDENT