Complainant Kishan Chand has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to make the payment of Rs.1,12,996/- in his favour and also issued directions to the opposite party no.3 to handover the custody of the vehicle in question to him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased Mahindra Bolero CV-Pik UP bearing Engine No.54237, Chasis No.70684  for earning his exclusively livelihood by way of self employment. The abovesaid vehicle is insured with opposite party no.2 who is having tie up with the opposite party no.1 for the period from 4.12.2014 to 3.12.2015 against policy no.015506303000 and paid premium of Rs.18,408/- to the opposite party no.2 and the said vehicle was financed by the opposite party no.3 Bank and the vehicle in question was fully hypothecated with the Bank. He was regularly paying the installments of the loan to the opposite party no.3. Unfortunately, his vehicle was met with road accident and his vehicle has suffered huge loss. He has conveyed the message regarding said accident and on the asking of the Insurance Company, he has got repaired the said vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and an amount of Rs.1,12,996/- has been spent by him from his own pocket for the repair of the vehicle in question. At that point of time the opposite party no.1 and 2 have allured that he will make the payment of the said amount and thereafter the opposite party no.2 would make the payment of the same amount to him. In the meantime, he has become unable to make the payment of installments of the loan amount to the opposite party no.3 and due to that reason on 8.11.2015 at about 8 P.M. the officials of the opposite party no.3 Bank have visited his house and illegally and forcibly taken away his vehicle. He has requested the opposite party no.3 not to remove the vehicle as he has not paid the installment due to the accident and now he will make the payment of installments of the vehicle in question to the Bank continuously, but they did not put any heed to his request. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered mental and physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

3.         Upon notice the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has concealed true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum hence complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Forum. There is no liability of insurance company and the claim has been repudiated due to breach of terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Actually during scrutiny of the documents, it has been observed that the vehicle was registered with DTO on 31.8.2015 i.e. more than 6 months after the vehicle met with an accident. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party had appointed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor, Mr.Deepak Gupta to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The vehicle was inspected by him and loss was assessed subject to the terms of the policy. After receipt of the report it was noted that the complainant had not provided RC for verification. Hence, a letter dated 2.9.2015 was sent to the complainant to provide Registration certificate of the vehicle for verification and return alongwith a request for submission of few more documents for further proceeding of the claim. In reply to the same, the complainant submitted the RC as per which the vehicle was found to be registered with the DTO on 31.08.2015 i.e. after six months of the date of accident. It may be noted that whereas the complainant purchased the vehicle in question in December 2014, the vehicle met with accident on 25.2.2015 and the same was registered on 31.08.2015 which shows that the vehicle was not registered as on date of accident thus standing in violation of Section 39 of MV Act. In view thereof, a letter dated 26.10.2015 was sent to the complainant and in absence of any clarification from the complainant, the claim was finally repudiated vide letter dated 2.12.2015.    All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of material and true facts from the knowledge of this Hon’ble Forum, as such present complaint is liable to be dismissed; the present complaint is malafide one and filed in order to wriggle out from his legal liability and with notice to extract money from the opposite party by way of filing present false and frivolous complaint; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the opposite party and the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle on 8.12.2015 as he himself shows his inability to repay the loan amount and voluntarily handover the vehicle to the opposite party. The vehicle has been repossessed with the approval and consent of the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant availed loan of Rs.4,85,000/- which is to be repaid by 47 installments starts from 17.12.2014 until 15.10.2018. Monthly EMIs of the loan amount is Rs.13,100/-. As per the statement of account it is evident that 15 monthly loan installments has been bounced. An amount of Rs.1,47,121/- stand due towards the complainant till 29.3.2016 as loan defaulted outstanding.  It was further submitted that no date, month and time was given by the complainant in his entire complaint with regard to alleged accident. There is continuous default on the part of the complainant since 15.1.2015. He never deposited his monthly installments in time and became chronic of the opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement which was duly read over and explained to the complainant in English as well as vernacular language at the time of advancement of loan, admitting the terms and conditions of the same to be true, correct and genuine, the complainant put his signatures over the same. As per the rights provided under the agreement, the vehicle was repossessed accordingly adopting due procedure and entire formalities were duly complied with at the time of repossession of the vehicle in question. Thereafter pre-sale notice was also served upon the complainant through registered post giving him one more opportunity to get his vehicle back after making the repayment of entire loan amount but he intentionally not come forward to liquidate the loan and to get back the possession of the vehicle from the opposite party instead of doing so he choose to file present complaint before this Hon’ble Forum in order to drag and harass the innocent opposite party.    All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohd. Azhar Wasi,Head Claims Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/13 and closed the evidence.

7.       Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Stefon Bangar Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-3/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/9 and closed the evidence.

8.           We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly produced forth by both the litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the intentional non-production of some of the documents vital for the adjudication of the present dispute in question; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the two sides.

9.        We find that the present dispute has resulted on account of accident claim ‘repudiation’ by the OP2 insurers on the grounds of violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act’ 1988 alleging that the insured vehicle was not registered as on the date of the accident. Somehow, we further find that the complainant has neither rebutted nor contested the ‘non-registration’ of the accidented vehicle but he has not even attempted to explain/narrate the circumstances supported by some cogent evidence that prevented him from getting his vehicle subjected to the statutory/mandatory registration, all the more so when it was being plied for ‘commercial’ purpose though for earning his ‘livelihood’ through ‘self-employment’. We also observe that the complainant has not even attempted to prove the alleged ‘accident’ (place, date & time etc) not its purchase and late-registration etc. By the time, it has been a settled legal proposition that any violation of ‘statutory’ provisions of law shall be construed as ‘violation’ of the terms of the Policy and as such its ensuing/ pursuant ‘claim’ can be lawfully repudiated by the OP2 insurers.

10.        The complainant has further alleged forcible ‘repossession’ of the financed vehicle by the OP3 Bank claiming regular repayment of the related vehicle-loan except for the ‘accident’ affected period. Again, the complainant has failed to support his ‘deposition’ with some cogent evidence of forcible and illegal ‘repossession’ etc and in its very absence the allegation-infested affidavit amounts to a mere ‘bald’ statement. Moreover, the installment repayment-statement does not corroborate the complainant’s claim of regular repayment and moreover the loan–agreement does contain the legal ‘repossession’ clause to be conducted in accordance with the procedure as prescribed in law. Finally, we find that the present complainant has totally failed to establish his case to prove the allegations as made out in his complaint and as such it does not attract a favorable statutory award under the Act.

11.         In the light of the all above, we do not find the hue of actionable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs. The complainant is also set at liberty to avail himself of any legal ‘relief’ of his choice and/ or advice but pursued in law as per the procedure established in law.

12.         Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                     President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

October 21, 2016.                                                                Member.

*MK*