BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1
FIRST APPEAL NO:1876/2010
Jakir Hussen s/o Chuurmulli Khan r/o village Dongda, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, Alwar.
Vs.
Mahindra Finance Services Ltd. 503 4th floor, Shalimar Complex Oppo. Church, Church Road, Jaipur through authorised representative & ors.
Date of Order 19.02.2015
Before:
Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member
Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member
Mr.Hari Prasad Jangid counsel for the appellant
None present on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2
Mr.Vishal Jain counsel for respondent no. 3 & 4
BY THE STATE COMMISSION
2
This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 3.8.2010 passed by the learned DCF Alwar by which it allowed the complaint.
Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken an insurance of his vehicle Bolero SLX 2 WD-7STR registration number RJ 32/UA-1010 on 9.4.2008. The insured value was Rs.5,93,465/-. This vehicle was stolen on 9.2.2009. A FIR was lodged with the Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur and a claim was filed with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company passed the claim for Rs. 5,70,000/- and the payment was made directly to the financier. The complainant filed this complaint alleging that IDV of the stolen vehicle was Rs. 5,93,465/- while the Insurance Company paid only Rs.5,70,000/-. They committed deficiency in short paying Rs.23,465/-. The complainant also alleged that he had already paid regular instalments to the financier and the amount due against him was Rs. 3,95,100/-. Thus, the payment of Rs.5,70,000/- should not have been paid to the financier.
The financier M/s. Mahindra Finance Service Ltd. submitted before the learned DCF that total amount due against the complainant was Rs. 4,91,081/- and it granted a rebate of
3
Rs.81,581/- in interest and balance of Rs. 1,51,500/- was refunded to the complainant. Thus, no deficiency in service has been committed by the financier. The Insurance Company submitted before the learned DCF that the complainant had accepted Rs. 5,70,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Thus, no deficiency has been committed.
We have heard the respective counsels of the parties. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has drawn our attention to the General Regulations of Motor Tariff. He argues that accepted value of the Bolero was Rs. 5,70,000/- and the complainant could not have taken insurance of Rs. 5,93,465/- which is against the general regulations. He further argues that the complainant had consented for payment directly to the financier.
We have perused the judgment of the learned DCF. There is no deficiency of service proved against the financier as they had returned the excess amount received from the Insurance Company to the complainant.
As regards short payment of Rs. 23,465/- to the complainant, as a matter of principle we feel that when the
4
insured value was Rs. 5,93,465/- and the premium on this amount was charged from the complainant, the Insurance Company was bound to make payment of this amount but since the complainant had accepted Rs. 5,70,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim, secondly the vehicle when stolen was ten months' old and was subject to depreciation also, we find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)
Member Presiding Member
