| ORDER | 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 as claim amount to him. He has further claimed Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief as it deems fit may also be passed, all in the interest of justice. - 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 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.88,631/- 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 the complainant 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 and assured full co-operation with the complainant remained reticent. 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.
- 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 complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties for filing the present complaint and complainant has filed the false complaint by concocting a false story, and dragged the opposite parties in false litigation and as such complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, 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 the 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 and further prayed that amount of Rs.4,79,094/- was outstanding against the complainant and as such insurance amount of Rs.4,48,400/- may be paid to the opposite parties and not to the complainant.
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 fact of the matter is that complainant in his complainant had alleged that vehicle was insured with the opposite parties but the copy of cover note provided to the insurance company was not legible and cover note no. was also not legible and the presence of the same it was not possible to verify the fact whether the same was insured with the opposite parties or not. It was stated that in the present case even no claim or any document had been submitted or referred by the complainant from which it clear that complainant had filed any claim with the opposite parties. Complainant had also alleged that his vehicle was lost during the period of insurance i.e. in the year 2008-2009 and if any claim had been filed by the complainant then there must be some letters sent by the company to the complainant but no such letter had been produced and this fact clearly shows that no claim had ever been filed and as such complaint of the complainant was premature one; complainant may be directed to produce better particulars so that it can be verified that the vehicle remained insured with the opposite parties and till then it is denied that the same was insured with the opposite parties and complaint is vague and in the whole complaint date of loss of vehicle had not been given. On merits, it was denied that vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.3 and complainant paid any premium. It was stated that complainant had alleged that he produced the copy of insurance policy but no such policy had been produced on the file. Only one cover note attached by the complainant but in it cover note no. was not legible. It was further stated that complainant be directed to produce the better particulars. It was denied that opposite parties assured the complainant that the IDV will be paid to him through demand draft. 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 Ranjit Singh Ex.C2 along with document Ex.C3 to Ex.C17 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. 7. Counsel for the opposite parties no.3 to 5 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashutosh authorized signatory Ex.OP-3to5/1 and remaining evidence of the opposite parties were closed by order. 8. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the opposite party vide affidavit Ex.OP3 to 5/1 dated 31.3.2016 has yet not finally decided the insurance claim of the claimant and have rather sought certain documents/information from the complainant which the complainant should have supplied. 9. We find that the present complaint is premature since the opposite party vide affidavit Ex.OP3 to 5/1 dated 31.3.2016 has not yet finally decided the insurance claim as to the loss of vehicle and have rather sought certain documents/information from the complainant which the complainant is bound to supply. Thus we dispose of the complaint and direct the complainant to approach the opposite party and submit the requisite relevant documents/information desired by them for settling the insurance claim within 15 days of the receipt of these orders and further direct the opposite party insurance providers to decide the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days of the receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to decide insurance claim duly filed by the complainants duly verified as per the settled procedure laid down by their regulating Agency IRDA. - 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) MAY 12, 2016 Member. *YP* | |
