Complainant Tarsem Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party for making the payment of Rs.1,69,500/- along with interest to him at rate of 18% Per Annum from the date of due till its actual realization on account of damage of his car and illegally receiving of the cheque from the Insurance Company by concealing the clearance certificate issued on 01.03.2011 by the Insurance Company. Complainant had also prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and be directed to pay litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the car bearing Registration No.PB-06-K-6134 was insured by the complainant from the United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Near Shaan Hotel, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, which was valid for the period with effect from 28.4.2010 to 27.4.2011 and policy was also issued by the Insurance Company in this regard. It was pleaded that the above said car of the complainant was hypothecated with the opposite party and complainant paid entire loan amount to the opposite party and on 01.03.2011 clearance certificate was also issued by the opposite party to the complainant by admitting in the clearance certificate that no amount was outstanding against the complainant towards the Company i.e. opposite party. It was pleaded that on 13.05.2010 at about 8.00 P.M. the above said car of the complaint met with road accident and the same was totally damaged and Insurance Company was duly informed in this regard and officials of the Insurance Company visited the spot and took the photographs of the damaged car. It was further pleaded that the Insurance Company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,69,500/- and after that complainant had filed Consumer Complaint No.168 of 2012 only against the Insurance Company and requested them to make the payment of Rs.3,46,183.50 Paise which was partly accepted and thereafter an appeal was filed by the Insurance Company before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and the same was allowed on 20.4.2015. It was also pleaded that cheque of the amount of Rs.1,69,500/- was illegally received by the opposite party even after making the payment of entire loan amount by the complainant till 01.03.2011 and nothing was due against him. It was next pleaded that due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party complainant had suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment from the hands of the opposite party and as such there was clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite party. It was pleaded that the cause of action for filing the present complaint had arisen on 20.04.2015 when Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh held in the order dated 20.04.2015, the cheque of the amount of Rs.1,69,500/- was received by the opposite party, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court and complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the car in question was hypothecated with the opposite party but it was denied that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount. It was stated that after 01.03.2011 complainant had not paid any future installment of loan amount and as such he was the defaulter and cheated the opposite party. It was further stated that vehicle was hypothecated with the opposite party and as per law Insurance Company was liable to pay the outstanding amount to finance company i.e. opposite party if any due towards the complainant. It was stated that a letter dated 01.03.2011 was issued to Insurance Company with intention to inform and declare that no installment were pending towards the opposite party till date i.e. 01.03.2011 whereas loan had not yet ended. It was also stated that future installment were to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party as per the loan agreement and letter dated 01.03.2011 does not mean that the loan had been full and finally satisfied. It was next stated that complainant was misinterpreting the letter with the intention and sprit of letter to his favour and misguiding the Hon’ble Forum. It was stated that statement of accounts regarding the details of payment of installments and balance payment was also given. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Counsel for the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Mohit Nanda Power of Attorney Holder Ex.OP-1 along with document Ex.OP-2 and document mark ‘A’ and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence available on the complaint records (as produced by the litigants) along with the scope of adverse inference that may be judicially drawn for those (evidentiary documents) ignored to be produced; of course, in the very back-drop of the past proceedings (of the present complaint) succeeded by the brilliant arguments of the learned counsels (for the two sides) to determine the permissibility of ‘legal superseding’, (if any). We find that the present complainant had previously defaulted also (on records) by suppressing the true facts that were material to disclose during the course of his earlier complaint before this forum. However, the honorable State Commission has dealt, at length, with the matter in issue vide its orders pronounced in FA # 880 of 2013 (Ex.C3); and finally determining therein that the ‘appellant/insurers’ had rightfully paid the insurance claim to the related ‘financers’ (presently, the titled opposite party) for credit in the loan a/c of the complainant with them. The honorable State Commission had duly rejected the (so addressed) financer’s ‘clearance certificate’ (Ex.C4) since its authenticity was neither proved (not even, dated) nor it was exhibited (on records) so as to gain/ carry any evidentiary value etc. Somehow, we fail to understand here, as to how the present complainant could have decided (or was legally advised) to file the present complaint on the same ‘cause of action’ that had judicially subsided vide the above referred ‘adjudicatory’ of the honorable State Commission.
7. Lastly, in the light of the settled legal proposition and statutory provisions in law, we find the present complaint to be devoid of any merit and thus ORDER for its dismissal.
- 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)
AUG. 11, 2016 Member.
*YP*
