Delhi

North East

CC/388/2024

TOHIDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.388/24

In the matter of:

 

1.     2.	Smt. Tohida W/o Lt. Sh. Akhtar   Sh. Akbar S/o Lt. Sh. Akhtar   Both R/o T Huts No. E 82/A 13, Sarhad Puri, New Seema Puri, Delhi, East Delhi, Delhi	Complainants
	Versus
1.                 2.	IDFC First Bank Ltd. (Through its Branch Manager) Ground floor 417, Jagriti Enclave     Delhi-110092 Also at:- KRM tower, 7th floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600031   ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Through its Regional  Manager) ICICI Prulife Towers, 1089 Appasahed Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainants is that the deceased (husband of Complainant No. 1 and father of Complainant No. 2) was the owner of Akhtar enterprise and he purchased vehicle bearing registration no. UP 14 LT 8085. The said vehicle was financed by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs. 13,06,699/- and the said loan was secured by Opposite Party No.2 under insurance policy ICICI Lombard Secure Mind vide policy no. 4005/M/IDFCCV/281860873/00/000 w.e.f 28.01.23 to 27.01.23 for sum assured 13,17,000/- in name of deceased and Opposite Party No.1 deducted sum of Rs. 13,573/- from loan account of deceased. It is the case of the Complainants that on 05.02.23 the deceased passed away due to cardio-pulmonary arrest. Thereafter, Complainant reported the death of deceased insured to Opposite Party No.1 and requested to foreclose the loan account of deceased by settling the balance loan amount from Opposite Party No.2 and requested to issue NOC of said truck.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 failed to foreclose the loan account and also failed to issue NOC to Complainants. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement and insurance policy, the Opposite Party No.1 is entitled to receive the balance loan amount from Opposite Party No.2 and the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to foreclose the loan account of deceased and issue NOC to Complainant.  Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
2. The present complaint is on admission stage. Arguments heard on admission and perused the file.
3. On careful scrutiny of the complaint and the annexures thereto, we find that Complainant has not filed any single document showing that any claim was lodged with the Opposite Party insurance company. During the course of arguments also, the Ld. Counsel for Complainant could also not produce or show any proof in this regards. This confirms that the Complainant had not filed any claim with respect to the subject loss with the Opposite Party till date, so the question of repudiation does not arise.
4. Further, the Complainants have filed copy of subject policy document and perusal of said document shows that the policy provides for Personal Accident cover to the insured while as per the complaint the cause of death of the insured was cardio –pulmonary arrest which does not fall within the definition of personal accident.
5. It is to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4841 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.30632 of 2011) titled Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) decided on 03.07.2012 made the observation that the cause of action is essential for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. Thus, a plaint that does not reveal/disclose the cause of action has no scope of succeeding and, thus, must be dismissed.
6. Since, in the present complaint, the Complainant has not lodged any claim with the Opposite Party Insurance Company and there is no repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party, no question of deficiency arises. The Complainants have not shown any cause of action in their favour and against the Opposite Parties, hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7.  In view of above facts, discussion and cited authority, we do not find any ground to admit the complaint. Thus, the present complaint is dismissed for being without any merits.
8. Order announced on 09.08.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)