Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 381.
Instituted on : 28.06.2017.
Decided on : 25.10.2018.
Satyawan aged 52 years s/o Sh. Duli Chand, R/o village Bhaini Surjan, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak. Age 52, Ph.9729060880.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Magma HDI General Ins. Co. Limited through its General Manager, having its registered office at 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700016,. Policy No.P0015400002/4103/126457 Dt. 27.12.2014.
- The Magma Fincorp Limited through its Sr. Branch Manager/incharge, Narayan Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anurag Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sameer Gambhir Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of truck No.HR-46D-6598 which was financed with opposite party No.2 and insured by opposite party No.2 from the opposite party no.1 for the period 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015. That the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1900000/-. That the alleged truck was stolen on 04.09.2015 by some unknown person. Complainant informed the police as well as the opposite parties immediately regarding the theft and lodged his claim with the opposite party No.1. That after investigation opposite parties have settled the claim of the complainant and has paid an amount of Rs.1798500/- directly to financer in loan account of complainant against the insured amount of Rs.1900000/-. That complainant requested the OPs to pay the remaining amount of Rs.101500/- but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties of deduction of alleged amount is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.101500/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has already admitted and submitted in the complaint that the answering respondent has already paid the amount of Rs.1798500/- to the complainant. The respondent has paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of Insurance policy, as compulsory excess amount is mandatory to deduct. That the complainant has consented the agreed amount of Rs.1798500/- towards full and final settlement of the claim and had signed and submitted the satisfaction/discharge voucher in respect of claim to the opposite party. Hence complainant is not entitled for any relief and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the contents regarding the vehicle in question being financed with the answering opposite party is correct. That complainant did not make the payment of installments regularly and as per closure date 30.06.2016 approximate an amount of Rs.1843019/- was outstanding towards the complainant and guarantor. That this loan account was got closed by the answering opposite party post adjustment of the vehicle claim amount of Rs.1798500/- which was received from the insurer company on dated 26.05.2016 in account of vehicle claim of the complainant being financer. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and the evidence of OP No.1 was closed by the order dated 01.10.2018 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document Ex.R2/2 to Ex.R2/8, Mark A and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case insurance and theft of the vehicle is not disputed. After the theft complainant filed the claim with the opposite parties. As per the consent letter Ex.R1, complainant has agreed for an amount of Rs.1798500/- towards full and final settlement of his claim and he has already received this amount. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 1(2018)CPJ184 NCDRC titled as Shiv Vilas Resort Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company as well as law submitted by ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 cited in Revision Petition No.354 of 2007 of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant has already received the amount towards full and final settlement of his claim. As such he is not entitled for any other relief. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.10.2018. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
