BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 60 of 2014

                Jabid Ahmed,   ……………..…………………………………             Complainant.  

                                                                        -V/S-

                 1.    The ICICI Lambard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                        (Represented by its Manager)

                        Apeejay House,7^th & 8^th Floor, 15^th Park Street,

                        Kolkata, Pin-700016, West Bengal.                                                 O.P No.1.

                 2.    The Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

                        (Represented by its Manager)

                        Ground Floor, Holding No.16, Beside Surana Motors,

                        N.S. Avenue, Hailakandi Road, Silchar-5.                                      O.P No.2.

                 3.    Imran Alom Barbhuiya,

                        S/O Gias Uddin Barbhuiya,

                        Vill- Baurikandi part-II, P.O-Hatikhal Bazar

                        P.S. Kachudaram, Cachar.                                                              O.P No.3.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                 President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

           Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                      Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                             

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared: -                Mr. Ansarul Haque Laskar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. A.S. Mitra, Advocate for the O.Ps.

                                                 Date of Evidence                                          13-05-2015, 11-06-2015

                         Date of written argument                            13-08-2015, 30-09-2015, 23-05-2017

                         Date of oral argument                                 28-11-2017, 04-12-2017                    

                         Date of judgment                                         12-02-2018

                                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                  Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Jabid Ahmed brought this case against the ICICI Lambard General Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal, The Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Silchar and agent Imran Alom Barbhuiya for award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of the insured vehicle and Rs.50,000/- against O.P No.1 and 2 for disservice. No relief is claim against O.P No.3. The O.P No.2 is Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Silchar.

    

2. The Complainant brought the case within following allegation:-He purchased vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-11-BC/0792 on financial aid of the O.P No.2 vide loan agreement No. 5001166638 dated 08-02-2013. The vehicle was insured under O.P No.1 vide Insurance Policy No.30040/TM00033600/00/000. As he was not financially strong to pay monthly installment of his vehicle loan to O.P No.2, so he entered into an agreement with O.P No.3 for transfer of the vehicle and accordingly handed over the possession of the vehicle in consideration of Rs.26,500/- with further condition to pay the monthly installment to O.P No.2 at the rate of RS.7,925/- agreed that Registration Certificate of the vehicle to be transferred on completion of payment of installment for 35 month to O.P No.2, vide agreement dated 29-11-2013.

3. But very unfortunately 11-01-2014 at mid-night the vehicle was stolen away by some unknown miscreants from the possession of the O.P No.3. Accordingly, on receiving information the complainant lodged FIR to O/C Kachudaram Police Station. The Kachudaram P.S registered the P/S case No.9/2014 U/S 380 IPC dated 25-01-2014. On investigation Police could not recover the vehicle rather submitted FR.

    

4. However, the complainant lodged claim petition to O.P No.1 but O.P No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that registration of the vehicle was not transferred in favour of O.P No.3 and fact of transfer was not informed to O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 knowing the fact of theft of the vehicle never claim any compensation for O.P No.1 rather creating pressure for realization of due amount from the complainant.

5. The O.P No.1 in its W/S stated inter-alia that his District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction against O.P No.1. The O.P No.1 also stated that the vehicle has been transferred to O.P No.3 without any prior information to the O.P-Insurance Company which is clear violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. It is also stated that the O.P No.3 was not connected with the Insurance Company, anyway at the time of theft of the vehicle.

6. The O.P No.2 the financer of the vehicle in its W/S stated inter-alia that the complaint made misconceived and baseless allegation of deficiency in the complaint petition. The complainant against O.P No.2 does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute. The O.P No.3 did not submit any W/S and as such the case is proceeding against him exparte.

7. During hearing the complainant submitted his deposition and exhibited 9 (nine) number of documents including copy of Insurance Policy, FIR and Police Report. The O.P No.1 also submitted deposition of Dipankar Roy, the legal Manager of the Insurance Company. The O.P No.2 also examined Sri Sabyasachi Dutta, the Area legal Manager and Authorized Signatory and exhibited some documents. After closing evidence the Ld. Advocate of the complainant submitted written argument. The Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.1 has also submitted written argument, similarly the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.2 submitted written argument.

8. Heard oral argument of both sides’ counsels and perused evidence on record including written argument.

9. In this case insurance coverage of the aforesaid vehicle under the O.P No.1 is not denied but moot point is as whether insurance company is liable to pay compensation etc. for theft of the vehicle from the possession of person other than the insured.

10. The complainant by adducing evidence tried to establish the fact that an agreement was there to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to O.P No.3 and prior to transfer the ownership and changing the name of insured in the insurance document, the vehicle has been stolen away from the possession of the proposed purchaser. The said fact is not challenged by the O.P No.1. Moreover, Ext-8 FIR and Police Report supported the fact of stealing of the vehicle. In the police report, it is also stated by the investigation officer that the vehicle was not recovered and accordingly case is returned in FR.

11. Anyhow, there is no express provision of Law available before me to say that the insured cannot hand over possession of his insured vehicle to any other person on agreement for sale, except a provision that the fact of transfer of ownership must be inform to the insurance company with request to change the name of insured in the insurance document as per provision of sent 157 (2) of M.V. Act.1988. On the instant case the ownership has not been changed, so there is no question to inform the Insurance Company regarding argument for sale. That is why, Insurance Policy is found in force on the date of stealing of the insured vehicle. So, question is relevant as whether the vehicle was kept un-care at the time of stealing. Nothing found from the evidence on record that the O.P.No.3 kept the vehicle in un-care manner for which it was stolen.

12. Thus, in my considered view, the Insurance company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for because value of the vehicle as per Ext.4 Insurance Policy is Rs.2,24,739. The Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassing the Complainant for repudiating the claim and also liable to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.3,000/-.

13. So, for as the O.P.No.2 is concern I am of opinion that the relation between the complainant and O.P.No. 2 is borrower and creditor in respect of sanctioning vehicle loan. So, the status of the complainant is not a Consumer to the O.P.No.2. Therefore, no liability can be granted to the Complainant against O.P.No.2. Moreover, the Complainant did not pray for any relief against O.P. No.3. So, in my considered view the O.P.No.3 has been impleaded unnecessary in this case.

14. With the above the O.P.No.1 is directed to satisfy the award within 45 days from today. In default, interest at the rate of 10% per annum shall be charged with awarded amount from the date of defaulter.

15. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 12^th day of February, 2018.