Complainant Gurmukh Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to release Rs.4,48,400/- as IDV of tractor along with interest @ 18% per annum as claim amount to him. He has further claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief as it deems fit may also be passed, all in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was availing the services of the opposite party No.1 for the purchase of Mahindra Tractor Arjan 555 in the year 2008 and the total costs of the tractor was Rs.4,72,000/- and the financed amount was Rs.3,75,000/- which was to be paid in 60 EMI at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month out of which complainant had paid Rs.1,16,248/- to the opposite party No.1. It was pleaded that tractor in question was insured with opposite party No.3 and the IDV value of the same was Rs.4,48,400/- for which he had paid Rs.7,932/- as premium through HDFC Bank vide cheque No.359505 which was received by opposite party No.3 on 16.5.2008. It was pleaded that ownership of the tractor was in the name of the complainant which was issued by registering authority Batala. It was further pleaded that tractor Mahindra Arjan 555 bearing registration No.PB-18-M-7324 was stolen by some unidentified persons and FIR No.13 U/s 379 IPC was registered at P.S. Dera Baba Nanak on the statement of Kashmir Singh son of Ajit Singh brother of the complainant and opposite parties were also informed regarding the theft of tractor. It was pleaded that complainant for getting the insurance claim of Rs.4,48,400/- submitted in black and white the original forms of FIR, copy of R.C., report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. and untraced report to the opposite parties which were received by them and the verification regarding the ownership and registration was done on 14.4.2009 by the opposite parties. It was also pleaded that complainant was assured by the opposite parties that the IDV insured amount of Rs.4,48,400/- will be paid to him through demand draft so that the complainant could clear the remaining installments of opposite parties No.1 and 2. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 were also informed regarding the theft of the tractor by the complainant who established direct nexus with the opposite parties No.3 to 5 for expediting the insurance claim. It was next pleaded that in the year 2015 opposite party No.1 had filed a case U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant and the complainant came to know regarding this when he received the summons from the court of Sh.Rajinderpal Singh Gill JMIC Gurdaspur that opposite parties No.3 to 5 had not paid the claim to the opposite parties No.1 and 2. Complainant also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties for releasing the insured amount of Rs.4,48,400/- along with interest but of no avail. It was pleaded that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not releasing the insured amount of Rs.4,48,400/- to the complainant, hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsels and filed their separate written replies. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed their reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and filed with a malafide intention with a view to harass the opposite party no.1 and2 by misusing the process of law to avail undue advantages; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not come before the Hon'ble Forum with clean hands; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties for filing the present complaint; the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act; the complaint is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and the complaint is misjoinder of necessary parties. It was stated that installment of EMI was Rs.14,531/- and the complainant had paid Rs.1,16,248/- to the opposite parties. It was stated that complainant was the owner of the tractor in question but the same had been hypothecated with the opposite parties and the said hypothecation had yet not been redeemed as the complainant had not repaid the entire loan amount. It was further stated that complainant had not paid remaining loan installments of the tractor to the opposite parties and as such he was not entitled to receive single penny from the opposite parties (insurer) before clearance of the loan amount. Complainant was also not entitled to receive the amount of compensation from the opposite parties no.3 to 5 without repayment of entire loan amount. It was also stated that complainant himself issued a cheque to the opposite parties which was dishonoured on its presentation due to which opposite parties filed a complaint U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant. It was pertinent to mention here that before the filing the above said complaint legal notice U/s 138 of N.I. Act was also served upon the complainant and he was fully aware about the dishonouring of cheque. All other averment made in the complaint have been denied and opposite parties no.1 and 2 have prayed that present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

4. Opposite parties no.3 to 5 also filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant failed to provide/submit court approved final report which is material document due to which the claim has not been paid and letter dated 29.9.2016 has been duly sent in this regard. So, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the complaint is vague and in the whole complaint date of loss of vehicle had not been given. On merits, it was submitted that as per order passed by ld. Forum the claim has been decided. The complainant failed to provide/submit court approved final report which is material document due to which the claim has not been paid and letter dated 29.9.2016 has been duly sent in this regard. All other averments made in the complaint have been specifically denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Ajit Singh Ex.CW2 along with document Ex.C2 to Ex.C21 and closed his evidence.

6. Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohit Nanda Authorized representative Ex.OP1,2/1/A and closed the evidence.

   7. Counsel for the opposite parties no.3 to 5 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashutosh authorized signatory Ex.OP-3to5/1 and closed the evidence.

   8. We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective contesting clients.

   9. We find that the present dispute has arisen at the impugned ‘repudiation’ dated 29.09.2016 (Ex.C18/Ex.OP3to5/2) of the complainant’s insurance-claim of his insured stolen Tractor (FIR # 13 of 05.03.2009; Ex.C11) and communicated to him during the execution proceedings U/s 27 of the Act of the CC # 406/2015 previously filed in the forum for settlement of the same. The forum in its orders of 12.05.2016 pertaining to CC # 406 had directed the complainant to submit to the OP3 to 5 insurers the desired documents and who in turn shall decide the claim within the next 30 days. However, the OP insurers rejected the impugned claim for the one reason that the complainant had failed to submit the court-approved final untraced-report of the stolen Tractor. We further find that the OP insurers during the entire course of proceedings had never pleaded that the Un-Traced Report did contain something ‘adverse/derogatory’ to the routine settlement of the claim in question. Moreover, the complainant has dutifully submitted the police report of investigations Ex.C4 and untraced report Ex.C8 clearly stating that neither the stolen Tractor could be traced nor any culprit arrested and the related Untraced Report has been filed in the court on 13.10.2009. In case, the same has been that requisite or the OP insurers were so sure of its non-affirmation nature they could have themselves procured the court approved Untraced Report before repudiation of the impugned claim.

   10. Presently, we direct the OP insurers to themselves procure the related Untraced Report from the court in which the police had filed the same, within 30 working days of the receipt of these orders and in case the same does not contain any derogatory issue adverse to the claim they shall decide the impugned claim within a further extended period of 30 days otherwise they shall be liable to pay the policy’s full IDV with benefits with 9 % interest from the date of the orders till actually paid.

   11. In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint accordingly with however no orders as to its costs incurred, here.

   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)

JAN. 10, 2018                                                                                             Member.

*YP*