PRESENT

          Complainant by representative Adv.Smt.Suvarna Chaudhari.                                                              

         Opponent  No. 1 Absent.

          Opponent No. 2 Ex-parte.             

                                       ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1.                The  Complainant who  was owner of a Tempo  Tata SFC 407/31 has taken the Insurance Policy of opp. no. 1  Insurance Company.  The said  vehicle was taken by  availing  loan from opp. no. 2 finance company.  The contract of Insurance was for a period between 28.9.2013 to 27.9.2014  and amount of premium  was Rs. 22,433/-.

2.                According to complainant, he was unable to pay regular installments of loan due to financial slow down in Market.  He expressed  his problem to recovery Manager of Opp. no. 2 and he was advised  by said Manager to sell the vehicle and close the  loan account.

3.                The complainant decided to sell the vehicle  to he person namely Mr. Ansari who was  introduced by Manager of opp. no. 2 and accordingly agreement for sale duly notarized was prepared by them.

4.                The complainant stated that as per sale agreement , Mr.Ansari was obliged to pay Rs.1.52 lacs to him and opp. no. 2 agreed to finance for said transaction, to the amount of Rs.5,98,950/- .  The said transaction was cancelled, due to  difficulties in  getting  of loan.

5.                The  said vehicle was stolen during 11.1.2014 to 12.1.2014  from parking place.  The F.I.R.  was filed at Wadala Police  Station and C.R. was registered vide No. 9/14  and intimation was given to regional Transport authority.  The complaint was classified and  closed ‘A’  vide Summary report.

6.                The complainant lodged  claim on the basis of  Insurance agreement vide no. 3379102510.  The Insurance company appointed surveyor  namely “ Impact  Surveyors Private Ltd”  for the said claim.  The complainant submitted all relevant  documents , demanded by said surveyor.

7.                According  to complainant, surveyor  informed vide  letter dated 13.3.2014  stating that as complainant sold the vehicle, the Insurance company has no any liability to indemnify  the loss of complainant.  The opp. no. 1 rejected  claim on 9.6.2014  on the same ground.

8.                According to complainant, both opposite parties are sister concern.  The opp. no. 2 has black listed him in the record of CIBIL due  to non payment of loan due to slow down in market  and later on due to theft of  vehicle.

9.                The complainant alleged that,  he was subjected to mental agony due to deficiency  in service  by opponents.  He claimed an amount of Rs. 5,96,770/- as per contract of Insurance and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacs ) towards mental agony.

10.              On 8.3.2016 the forum passed order to proceed without W.S. against opp.no. 1 and ex-parte order against opp. no. 2  as per law.  The complainant filed affidavit of evidence on 18.5.2016  and written argument on 18.6.2016.

11.              The opponent  no. 1  filed written argument on 9.9.2016 and opp. no. 2 filed written argument on 28.12.2016  though both did not file W.S.  The complainant submitted that written argument be treated as oral argument.

12.              We have perused complaint, registration  Certificate of vehicle,  copy of  agreement  of sale of vehicle, copy of First Information Report, letters of Surveyor  and rejection letter by opp.no. 1.

13.              The complainant is registered owner of vehicle  and the said vehicle is stolen during contract of Insurance.  The agreement of sale dated 26.12.2013  stipulates that complainant shall sale and Mr. Ansari shall purchase vehicle  for consideration of Rs. 1.52 lacs.  It was agreed that Ansari paid Rs.1.52 on 26.12.2013 and remaining amount  willbe  financed by opp.no. 2.

14.              The record shows that Mr. Ansari paid Rs.1.52 to complainant, however the sale was not completed due to difficulties  in obtaining loan.  As the agreement  was not complied  with due to loan.  The complainant is the owner of said vehicle  and his name  is recorded in R.T.O.   There is no effect of the said  agreement.

15.              In the result, we hold that surveyor   is not justified to come to conclusion that,  complainant  has no insurable interest and  Insurance company is not justified to repudiate the claim.  We hold that complainant was having insurable  interest in the said vehicle at the time of theft  of vehicle.

16.              The opp. no. 2 is entitle  to take steps as per law in case of non payment on loan as per agreement.  Both opponents  are separate legal entities and cannot be said to be sister concerns.  We do not find any deficiency in service by opp. no.2.

17.              The opp. no. 1 is liable to pay amount as per Insurance contract.  It is to be noted that opp.no.1  was not consulted prior  to entering into agreement of sale in favour of Mr. Ansari.  It was expected that complainant should inform opp. no. 1  prior to entering into an agreement of sale of insured vehicle.  This is not justified, however the same is not  fundamental breach of contract.  However the said omission  on the part of complainant, would reduce  the claim to the extent of non standard  basis i.e. 75 % of I.D.V.

18.              The complainant claimed  compensation for mental  agony, we allowed  interest  on the amount payable by opp.no.1 , so no separate  order regarding  compensation is necessary.  The complainant is not entitle for separate  compensation.   

19.              In the result we pass following order.

                                         O R D E R

1.       Complaint case No.115/2015  is partly allowed.

2.      The opp. no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 4,47,577/- ( Four lacs forty  seven thousand five hundred seventy seven ) with interest

         @ 9  %  p.a. from the date of  repudiation of claim i.e. 9.6.2014  till payment.

3.      The opp. no. 1 is directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/-(Ten  thousand) to complainant.   

4.      Copy of this order be sent to both parties.