Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant availed a loan from the 1st Opposite party for purchasing a Hydra 12 Crane (Escorts make) and arranged for repayment through his current account with the 2nd Opposite party.<br /> <br /> 2. The vehicle was damaged on 02.06.2006 while being used on the job. The Complainant immediately informed the 1st opponent and the insurer of the vehicle ICICI Lombard General Insurance. Claim forms along with documents were, also, duly submitted. The claim was Rs.8,03,064/-. But it was not settled. The Complainant says that he suffered on account of non-settlement as the crane could not be repaired and put to use. <br /> <br /> 3. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties have taken an Insurance Policy from the sister concern with an over turning clause inserted. As the settlement of the claim was taking time, he offered to surrender the vehicle. As the 1st Opposite Party did not take this seriously he approached the 2nd Opposite Party with a request not to honour the cheques issued by him as security for the loan and also not to debit the installments to his account. He says that an amount of Rs.36,540/- has been debited for the months of September and October 2006. This according to him is voilative of the contract and hence he has filed this complaint. He has prayed that the 2nd Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs.73,080/- and also to stop the Auto Debit from his account until the insurance claim is settled. He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 4. In the common version filed by the Opposite Parties they have admitted advancement of loan to the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and also the Auto Debit towards installments. They have contended that since the vehicle is insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., they cannot be blamed for the delay in settlement of the claim and since he has filed another complaint against the said Insurer before this Forum this complaint based on the same cause of action is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> 5. The Opposite Parties have also denied that the complainant offered to surrender the vehicle. They have averred that the complainant has no right to cancel auto debit instruction and he can also not prevent them from encashing the cheques given as security. They have pointed out these are the terms of agreement between them and there is no clause in the agreement which prevents the complainant from escaping the liability to pay for damage to the vehicle. <br /> <br /> 6. From the above averments, the following points for our consideration:-<br /> I. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?<br /> II. Whether the Opposite Parties prove that the transaction with the complainant is as per the terms of the agreement?<br /> III. What relief or order?<br /> <br /> 7. After hearing both parties and perusing the documents we have answered the points as under:-<br /> Point No.I : In the negative.<br /> Point No.II : In the affirmative.<br /> Point No.III : As per final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Points No.I & II:- It is convenient to deal with both points together we have taken them up together. The admitted facts are that the complainant has availed a loan from the Opposite Parties to purchase a crane which met with an accident on 02.06.2006. It is also admitted that the vehicle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., who have not settled the claim and the complaint in this regard has been filed by the complainant in CC 294/06 which is pending. It is, therefore obvious that the Opposite Parties are not liable for the delay in settlement of the claim. It is therefore eminates that the Opposite Parties who have financed the purchase of the vehicle are only interested in recovering their money. No doubt, neither party has produced the agreement executed while extending financial assistance. However, the complainant who is claiming relief based on the clauses in the agreement should have filed a copy of the agreement to draw our attention to the specific clauses based on which he is claiming the reliefs. His simple case is that because the insurer has not settled the claim, the Opposite Parties should not recover installments and should not appropriate the cheques given as security. In order to get this relief he should draw our attention to the clause in the agreement, which exempts him from making payment if the vehicle is damaged and the insurer does not settle the claim within a specific period. In the absence of any specific clause in the agreement, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, we answer point No.1 in the negative and point no.2 in the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 9. This complaint appears to be a result of fertile imagination that delay in settlement of insurance claim can be a cause of action to sue the financier even if no such clause is found in the agreement with the financier. This is fit case to award damages to the Opposite Parties. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> B. The complainant is directed to pay each Opposite Party Rs.200/- within two months from the date of this order failing which the said amount carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> C. No costs. <br /> D. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />