Delhi

North East

CC/472/2014

Sh. Om Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IffCO Tokio Gen. Ins Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2023

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. 472/14

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Om Singh S/o Sh. Sarni Singh R/o 1/2735, Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.                 2.	Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. F.A.I. Building, 10 Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110067 Also At:- Iffco-Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. Iffco House, 3rd Floor, 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019   Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 431/64/1, Ground Floor, LDA Trust, Estate, Kewal Park Extn., Azad Pur, Delhi-110033 Also At:- Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. C-115/A, Ist Floor, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

26.11.14 14.03.23 16.05.23

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the Complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing no.UP-14-ATM-9239, chassis no. 357514KUZ825407, engine no. 253241503715119. The said vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No.1 bearing policy no. 86520425 w.e.f 24.01.14 to 23.01.15 for IDV of vehicle         Rs. 2,50,000/-. The said vehicle was financed by Opposite Party No.2 and was hypothecated by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that on 26.04.14 the said vehicle got stolen and Complainant lodged written complaint to Opposite Party and to local police. FIR no. 770/14 was registered in this regard. The said vehicle was traced at Police Station, Pratap Pur, Meerut UP in damaged condition and in this regard FIR bearing no. 188/14 is lodged at Police Station Pratap Pur, Meerut UP. Thereafter Complainant took damaged vehicle on superdari vide order dated 10.06.14 of Hon’ble Court, Ghaziabad. The Complainant stated that he lodged claim with Opposite Party No.1 vide motor claim no. 33863724 and submitted all the necessary documents. The Complainant stated that surveyor has assessed a loss of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as the said vehicle was totally damaged. On 05.08.14 Complainant received letter from Opposite Party No.1 containing reference letter to Opposite Party No.2 and requires some documents from Opposite Party No.2 as the said vehicle was financed by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 wants to pass only sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- in lieu of assessed amount by surveyor. The Complainant met manager of Opposite Party No.2 to provide required documents but Opposite Party No.2 demanded full payment of loan amount. The Complainant stated that his claim was not passed due to non-submission of required documents. The Complainant made request to Opposite Party many times to pass his claim but Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of Complainant. The Complainant sent legal notice dated 30.09.14 to Opposite Party No.1 via speed post but all in vain. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.1 either to pay the IDV of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of filing the claim till payment or to pass the claim as per the report of surveyor. He further prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.2 to provide NOC/consent letter etc. as necessary documents to the Opposite Party No.1 against the vehicle in question and for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. The factum of the theft of the vehicle is admitted. It is stated that the claim of the Complainant has not yet been repudiated by it and is pending for want of necessary documents for making the transfer of amount to the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has not submitted the documents. It is stated that the complaint is without any cause of action and merit, and the same is dismissed.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is sated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that the Complainant has availed the loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- for it and he agreed to repay the same in 27 monthly instalments. It is stated that the Complainant has failed to pay the monthly instalments. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 2,34,054/- is due towards to the Complainant and on payment of this amount the Opposite Party No.2 will give NOC. It is stated that Opposite Party No.2 has the first charge over the insurance claim.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein the complainant has supported the case as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Bora, Constituted Attorney of the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased the vehicle in question which was financed by Opposite Party No.2 and the said vehicle was hypothecated to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 has insured the said vehicle from 24.01.14 to 23.01.15. During the period of the said insurance policy, the said vehicle was stolen and ultimately it was recovered by the police. However, the vehicle was in damaged condition at the time of recovery. The surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Party No.1. The claim of the claimant was not repudiated by the Opposite Party No.1 and was pending for want of NOC from the financer i.e. Opposite Party No.2.  The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant has not paid the instalments and an amount of Rs. 2,34,054/- is due towards the Complainant and NOC shall be issued after the Complainant pays this amount to the Opposite Party No.2. It is not the case of the Complainant that he had paid the said amount to the financer i.e. Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant has not filed any document on record to show that he had made any payment to Opposite Party No.2. As it is an admitted fact that vehicle was financed by Opposite Party No.2 and no evidence has been led by the Complainant to show that he has repaid the amount. Therefore Opposite Party No.2 is not supposed to issue NOC to the Complainant. As being the financer, the Opposite Party No.2 has the first charge over the claim so Opposite Party No.1 cannot give any claim amount to the Complainant.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 16.05.23.

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

                                 File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)            Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President