Late Manik Choudhury, the husband of the complainant, had purchased one Mahindra Quanto C-8, Four Wheeler vehicle on15.01.2013 bearing its registration no- WB-56G/8321 from Rudra Auto Mart Pvt. Ltd which is hypothecated to the Mahindra & Mahindra Finacial Services Ltd., Purulia Branch. duly Insured by Policy No. 3876411 valid from 15.01.2013 to 14.11.2014 which is lying with the OP No- 1 till date.

The complainant being the wife & legal heir of the said deceased Manik Choudhury alleges that though for purchasing the said vehicle Mahindra Loan Suraksha (MLS) Policy was taken by the husband of the complainant. But on sudden death of her husband on 30.01.2014 she had submitted the claim to the OP No 1 which has not yet been settled till date.

On 10.04.2014 the complainant served legal notices upon the OPs but in vain. Finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case for appropriate relief alleging deficiency of the services on the part of the OPs.

OPs are contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable. The OP specifically alleges that the borrower Manik Choudhury did not obtained the MLS Policy and accordingly prays for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reason

 At the time of final hearing the Ld counsel for the complainant stated that the O.P. has not filed the important documents such as terms and conditions of the loan, amount of loan, mode of payment etc, etc and also not filed the last page of the loan agreement to cancel the matter of MIS policy of the borrower.

            We have examined the entire materials on record and given an anxious thought to the argument advanced before us. The admitted fact is that the complainant’s husband had taken car i.e. for Mahindra Quanto C-8. She also claimed that premium for the said policy had been paid upto January 2014. The counsel for the O.Ps stated that during arguments the policy was not MLS policy and no documents had been produced by the complainant in this regard.

            Now the moot point is whether the policy is MLS one or not. The onus of proof of fact lies upon a person who asserts the fact. In this case it is the specific plea of the complainant that her husband at the time of the vehicle in question got it secured by the insurance policy named MLS policy obtained through the O.P. It is further plea that all the documents relating to the MLS policy were with the O.Ps but strange enough to note that the complainant did not ask for production of documents relating to insurance from the O.P.

However at letter stage, requisition being made by the complainant he O.P. filed the brochure of loan agreement inclusive of the documents for obtaining MLS policy.

            Ld advocate for the complainant vehemently criticized these documents by pointing out that a page last but one is missing and other pages contained  only the signature of the borrower and coloumn are left unfield up…. to ld advocate for complainant had  that very page been produced before this very Forum it would have revealed that application for MLS policy was made and premium was paid.

            Ld advocate of the O.P. on the other hand, has submitted that the missing page referred to above has got no bearing for obtaining the MLS policy. On the other hand he emphatically submitted that a borrower intending to have MLS policy is required to fill up the page with heading SCHEDULE-1 of the loan agreement which is very well lying in the loan agreement brochure in respect of the borrower i.e the husband of the present complainant. Where in column (xxvi) under the headings ‘Others’- ‘NA’ has been inserted. Other column duly filled in do not suggest that any amount towards payment ofpremium of MLS policy was paid by the borrower and received by the O.P. On the other hand, similar brochure in respect of another borrower namely Sanjeev Kumar Mahato has been furnished by the O.P. where similar Co No. (xxvi) ‘SC-1’ endorsement is found to the effect of ‘Insurance premium-MLS (Rs. 2322/- which unmistakably goes to suggest paid by the borrower and received by the O.P. for MLS policy in respect of the particular borrower.

Having heard both sides and having compared the loan agreement brochure in respect of the husband of the Complainant with that of another borrower we are convinced to hold that the of the Complainant did not pay any premium for obtaining MLS Policy.

Insurance of a particular Policy is the result of an argument which is concluded by payment & acceptance of premium preceded by an offer by way of an application for insurance of such policy.

The complainant could not produce any documents what so ever suggesting the intention to have such Policy by her has nor any other document to show that any such policy was even issued after compliance of necessary requirements.

It has been alleged that complainant with reference to specific Policy no has submitted that such Policy was issued by Roy but without assigning any reason did not make that company as OP which seems to be the best authority to say whether such a policy was issued in favour of complainant husband. So the complainant has shut the way to the best authority to disclose the truth in the matter of issuance of such a Policy. Therefore the complaint appears to be bad for defect of parties & for not impleading that authority who could supply the best evidence, adverse inference/ presumption is drawn against complainant.

In view of the above position we are constrained to note utter failure on the part of the complainant that her husband ever applied for /got any MLS Policy to secure the loan.

The entire loan part which is still outstanding having not been secured by any Insurance Policy, the complainant is held not entitled to relief as prayed for. Hence,

ORDERED

That the petition complainant be & the same warrants dismissal & is dismissal accordingly without any cost.

Member                                               Member                                               President