JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he is owner of two wheeler namely Hero Honda Passion, Chassis No.06L 09 C1964Z, Engine No.06L 08 M0 5114 and to protect the loss of any nature of the said two wheeler obtained an Insurance Policy vide Policy No.0096/31/07/16200/924 and the said policy stand valid from 13.07.2007 to midnight 12.07.2008 and during the said tenure of policy period on 17.09.2007 at about 15:00 hrs complainant’s said two wheeler was stolen on 17.09.2007 and complainant lodged a complaint to Sonarpur P.S. and Sonarpur P.S. Case No.487(9)/07, u/s 374 I.P.C. was started.  However Sonarpur P.S. failed to recover the said two wheeler and submitted Final Report to that effect.

          Fact remains that complainant obtained loan from H.D.F.C. Bank and as such the said two wheeler is under hypothecation under the said Bank.  Subsequently complainant processed the claim through the said Bank and sent the letter on 01.10.2007 to the Bank for process of the claim and also sent reminder to the HDFC Bank Ltd. but to no effect.  Thereafter complainant lodged claim to the op vide claim No.00901/31/07/62/1924 but inspite of receiving the said claim for settlement, op Insurance Company kept the claim and did not dispose the matter as yet and as per Insurance Company the claim of the complainant is for Rs.46,613/- as total loan as the said two wheeler has not been recovered by police and for deficiency and negligent manner of service, complainant filed this complaint for redressal.

          On the other hand op Insurance Company by filing written statement submitted that in the complaint as filed by the complainant has made some vexatious allegation.  Fact remains admittedly the claim was proceeded through op no.2 HDFC Bank and the original documents pertaining to the said claim was never filed before op no.2 within the scheduled period.  Despite requisition made by op no.2 original documents were never filed by complainant in time and in view of the breach of Insurance Policy condition the claim of the complainant was repudiated by op no.2 on 17.12.2008.

          But this complaint is filed in the year 2012, so it is hopelessly barred by limitation and for which the present complaint is not maintainable and the case should be dismissed.

          Whereas op no.1Banking authority by filing written statement submitted that it is the duty the complainant to get the vehicle insured and to lodge the complaint with insurance company in event of any loss, damage or theft of the vehicle.  The op bank being a financier, in no manner is liable to get the vehicle insured or to lodge any complaint on behalf of the complainant.  It is not a fact that the complainant sent any reminder to the op bank or lodged any claim with op bank and practically op bank has no liability to file such claim before the op insurance company, so the entire complaint against op no.1 is not maintainable and same should be dismissed.

                                                      Decision with reasons

          After considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also after thorough study of the complaint and written version, it is found that complainant is the owner in respect of present two wheeler.  Fact remains the said vehicle was insured under the present insurance company op no.2 for the period from 13.07.2007 to 12.07.2008 and it is also undisputed fact that the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant by taking loan from the op no.1 and vehicle is in question is under the hypothecation of the op no.1.

          Fact remains that the said vehicle after purchase was not registered with the RTO and so on the date of theft, the vehicle had no registration number and for which in the Final Police Report no registration number of the vehicle is there.  Another factor is that the said two wheeler was stolen on 17.09.2008 at about 15:00 hrs. and Sonarpur P.S. Case No.487(9)/07 u/s 374 IPC was recorded and as per Final Police Report, after investigation Investigatory officer failed to search out the said vehicle and most interesting factor is that even after purchase and insuring the same complainant did not register the vehicle as per MV Act to the Office of the RTO.

          No doubt it is one of the lapse on the part of the complainant and fact remains complainant failed to produce RC Book of the said two wheeler to the op along with claim and all other documents in original but policy copy was filed, along with copyof original FRT, original driving license and two nos of keys but no RC Book is filed.  It indicates that complainant initially failed to produce the registration certificate of the said vehicle and also failed to produce other original documents which was filed that means complainant even after purchase and after insuring the vehicle drove the two wheeler but did not register the said vehicle and it is no doubt lapse on the part of the complainant and after considering the materials and the documents, it is clear that complainant failed to produce original documents of the vehicle except two nos. of keys and in fact as per MV Rules complainant had no right to drive the said vehicle and moreover from FIR, it is found that in the FIR he also failed to give the registration number of the said vehicle and it is also proved from the copy of FIR that it was placed on the road side of Harinavi More wherefrom it was stolen that means the complainant did not take proper care in respect of any un-registered vehicle and practically the complainant had no legal right to drive the said vehicle when it was not registered by the RTO.  So, lapse of the complaint is apparent.

          It is equally true that op no.1 had no liability to file claim because complainant is the hirer of the loan and the vehicle was under hypothecation of op no.1 bank who advanced loan and regarding theft loss or damage of the said vehicle complainant is the insured.  So, as insured, it is his duty to submit all the necessary papers to the op the insurance company for settlement of the claim.  Whatever it may be it is clear that complainant failed to produce RC Book of the said vehicle and during advancement of argument, complainant was asked to produce RC Book when it was learnt that the said vehicle was not registered by RTO and no application was filed by the complainant.  Then it is clear that unregistered vehicle had been driven by the complainant which is against the spirit of the MV Act.

          Fact remains for non-submission of the original RC Book the said claim was not settled.  But anyhow op no.2 has tried to show that his claim was repudiated on the ground that all the documents were not submitted by the complainant which is no doubt a fact.  But at the time of advancement of arguments by the Ld. Lawyer for the Insurance Company, Ld. Lawyer submitted that the repudiation was reported.  But fact remains complainant has failed to prove by any cogent materials and whatever it may be, it is apparently proved that complainant failed to produce RC Book of the said vehicle.  But as per provision of law, the RC Book must be submitted at the time of claim if RC Book is not filed in that case question of deciding the claim does not arise as per insurance terms and conditions.  But even then considering the entire fact and circumstances and also considering the vital fact of theft of the vehicle and non-recovery of the same by the police as evident form submitted Final Police Report and after considering that matter we are convinced that practically this un-registered vehicle was stolen when registration of the vehicle was not done by the complainant and it was lapse on the part of the complainant and another factor is that the vehicle being unregistered vehicle was driven by the complainant and kept by the road side of Harinavi and no doubt complainant did not take proper safety of the said vehicle and so there was certain lapse on the part of the complainant.  But fact remains it was stolen and it could not be recovered by the police and when claim was submitted by the complainant then we find that as per principle of law and also considering the ruling reported in AIR 1996 (SC) 1664, we find that the insurance company ought to have allowed 75% of the claim in favour of the complainant by issuing such a cheque in favour of the op bank as op bank is the grantor of the loan in favour of the complainant and the vehicle was under hypothecation of the op no.1.

          Moreover relying upon the ruling reported in 2013 (3) CPR 700 NC, we find that in any case the violation of terms and conditions of the policy, non-standard principle should be adopted when complainant paid premium and accordingly we allow this complaint in part even after considering the lapses of the complainant and also considering non-registration of the vehicle by the complainant.

          Hence, it is

                                                                ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the op no.2 with a  cost of Rs.2,000/- and same is dismissed against op no.1 without any cost.

          Op no. 2 is hereby directed to release 75% of the insured amount as finally settled claim of the complainant and the said amount shall be paid to the op no.1 against loan account of the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. since 2008 and it must be deposited to the op no.1 bank against loan account of the complainant in respect of the said stolen vehicle and before issuing any cheque to the op no.1, op no.2 shall have to collect the loan account number of the complainant either from the complainant or from the op no.1 and thereafter deposit the same to the op no.1 within one month from the date of this order.

          Cost as awarded to the extent of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid by cheque to the complainant within one month from the date of this order if op no.2 fails to comply the order in that case penal action shall be started against him/them and further penalty or find may be imposed for non-implementation of the order of this Forum.