IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 40/2008 (Filed on 29.04.2008)Between: P.G. Vijayan, Vijaya Bhavan, Edapariyaram, Elanthoor Village, Pathanamthitta Dist. (By Adv. P.M.A. Karim) .... Complainant. And: 1. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Pazhavangadi P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Sam Koshy) 2. Manager, HDFC Bank, Aban Towers, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. V. Sathish Kumar) ... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a 2 wheeler LML Freedom by availing a loan from the second opposite party. The said vehicle was insured with the first opposite party. At the time of availing the loan, the second opposite party had collected the original registration certificate, duplicate key of the vehicle and 34 cheque leaves as collateral security for the vehicle loan. On 06.08.2006, the said vehicle was stolen from the safe custody of the complainant. The vehicle is having a valid comprehensive insurance policy with the first opposite party at the time of theft. The first opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. The theft was reported to the Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta, who in turn registered a crime as 687/06 under Sec.379 of Indian Penal Code and investigated the matter. 3. Later, the police has filed UN report before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Pathanamthitta , as the vehicle could not recovered. Thereafter the complainant filed a claim form before the first opposite party who refused to give the claim amount to the complainant as the vehicle is hypothecated with the second opposite party. The complainant has paid 27 instalments of the loan out of the 34 instalments. So the complainant approached the second opposite party for closing the loan with 7 instalments for the release of the registration certificate and duplicate key for submitting it before the first opposite party for getting the claim amount. But the second opposite party refused to accept the balance instalments and to release the registration certificate and the duplicate key. Moreover, the second opposite party demanded exorbitant amount for the closing of the loan account. Later, the complainant issued legal notice to the second opposite party demanding the release of the registration certificate and the duplicate key after receiving he balance 7 instalments. Though the second opposite party received the notice on 22.01.2008, they have neither accepted the balance instalments and returned the registration certificate and the duplicate key nor responded to the notice. Because of the above said act of the second opposite party, complainant had lost the claim amount and sustained mental agony, which is a deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for directing the second opposite party to accept the remaining instalments and to release the registration certificate and the duplicate key and for realising an amount of 54,250 under various heads from the opposite parties with its interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 4. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate version. 5. The main contention of the first opposite party is as follows: They admitted the issuance of the policy, validity of the policy, theft of the vehicle and claim form submitted by the complainant. For processing the claim form, first opposite party informed the complainant to produce certain documents including the registration certificate duly transferred in the name of the insurance company and the duplicate key of the vehicle. But the complainant failed to produce the same. Upon payment of the insurance claim in the case of theft, the ownership of the vehicle stand vested with the insurance company. In any event, the police trace out the vehicle, the proper party for taking custody is the insurance company and hence the original registration certificate and duplicate key is required. The first opposite party was prevented from the settlement of the claim due to the non-production of the R.C. book and the duplicate key and the non-production of the same was due to the non-settlement of the dues to the second opposite party by the complainant. But without a proper change of name in the original registration certificate and handing over of the duplicate key, the first opposite party could not settle the claim. Hence the loss or mental agony if at all is attributable not to the first opposite party. Hence it cannot be said that the service of the first opposite party is deficient. With the above contentions, first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. 6. The main contentions in the version of the second opposite party is as follows: They admitted the loan arrangement with the complainant. But they denied that the original registration certificate or the duplicate key were with them. They also denied that the complainant had offered the dues and they have not accepted the money offered. According to the second opposite party, the endorsement regarding the loan on the registration certificate was made by the LML agency and they might have retained the said certificate and hence they are unable to return it. The complainant is bound to pay all the dues to the second opposite party. But the complainant failed to pay the dues. The complainant’s allegation that the second opposite party had demanded more amount is false and they have not collected any amount other than the actual dues as per the agreement. With the above contentions, second opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint, as they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. 7. On the basis of the averments of the parties, the only question to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed as prayed for in the complaint? 8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder based on his proof affidavit and the proof affidavit filed by the first opposite party in lieu of chief examination and Exts.A1 to A7 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 9. The Point: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination narrating the complainant’s case along with 7 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant’s Power of Attorney Holder was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is the Power of Attorney dated 23.03.2009 executed by the complainant in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is the copy of the legal notice dated 20.02.2008 issued to the second opposite party. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt of Ext.A2. Ext.A4 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the UN report in Crime No.687/06 of Pathanamthitta Police Station filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the Claim Form submitted by the complainant before the first opposite party. Ext.A7 is the letter-dated 16.05.2008 issued by the first opposite party demanding to submit 5 documents for processing the complainant’s claim. 10. In order to prove the contentions of the first opposite party, the Divisional Manager of the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with one document and the said document is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the carbon copy of the letter-dated 07.08.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant for producing 7 documents and the duplicate key of the vehicle for processing the complainant’s claim. 11. For the second opposite party, no oral or any documentary evidence were adduced. 12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have gone through the materials on record. It is seen from the evidence that the complainant had no grievance against the first opposite party though the first opposite party is arrayed as an opposite party in this complaint. It is very clear from the deposition of PW1, which is as follows: R§fpsS ]cmXn HDFC _m¦ns\Xncmbn«mWv. ...................... _p¡v, Uq]vfnt¡ Io XpS§nb hml\¯nsâ tcJIfpw aw sk¡³Uv O.P. bpsS ssIhiamWv. R.C. Book- Dw hml\¯nsâ ownershipw ^ O.P. bpsS t]cn transfer sN¿m\pÅ _¸« tcJIfpw lmPcm¡Wsa¶v Ext.A1 {]Imcw O.P.1 Bhiys¸«n«pv. AXv \mfnXphsc sImSp¯n«nÃ. AXp sImSp¡msX O.P.1 claim settle sN¿nÃ. So the first opposite party’s contention is admitted by the complainant. So, we find that the first opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant. 13. So the complainant’s grievance is against the second opposite party and the complainant’s allegation against the second opposite party is that the second opposite party had not returned the R.C. book and the duplicate key inspite of the complainant’s offer for the payment of the last 7 instalments due to the second opposite party. But the second opposite party denied that the duplicate key and the R.C. book is not with them and also denied the allegation of the complainant that they have not accepted the complainant’s offer. They also argued that the registration certificate and the duplicate key might have been with the LML Company. But this contention cannot be accepted, because from the facts and circumstances of this case, the said LML Company is not a party to the loan arrangement. The loan was given by the second opposite party to the complainant and hence we find that the duplicate key and the R.C. book is with the second opposite party. Moreover, the second opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the R.C. book and the duplicate key are with LML company. 14. However, it is admitted by the complainant and the second opposite party that certain dues are pending in the loan transaction. The non-response of the second opposite party towards Ext.A2 legal notice leads to a presumption that the second opposite party had not accepted the offer of the complainant for paying the last 7 instalments. But the complainant or the second opposite party has not brought any evidence to show the actual dues in connection with the loan transaction. The non-disclosure of the actual dues before this Forum by the complainant and the second opposite party cast serious doubt in their bonafides and hence we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant and the second opposite party as such and hence the complaint cannot be allowed as prayed for. However, the complainant requires R.C. book and the duplicate key for getting the insurance claim whereas the second opposite party is entitled to get the dues for the release of the R.C. book and the duplicate key. In the circumstance, this complaint is disposed as follows: 15. The complainant is directed to remit the actual dues as on 22.01.2008 the date on which Ext.A2 legal notice was received by the second opposite party. The second opposite party is directed to return the original R.C. book, duplicate key and other connected documents to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the dues as on 22.01.2008. The first opposite party is directed to settle the complainant’s claim within 30 days from the date of compliance of the directions given by the first opposite party to the complainant as per Ext.A7 letter. In the nature and circumstances of the case, no compensation and cost ordered. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of September, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Power of Attorney dated 23.03.2009 executed by the complainant in favour of V.M. Sasidharan. A2 : Photocopy of the legal notice dated 20.02.2008 issued to the second opposite party by the complainant. A3 : Postal receipt of Ext.A2. A4 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A2. A5 : Photocopy of the UN report in Crime No.687/06 of Pathanamthitta Police Station filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, ,Pathanamthitta. A6 : Photocopy of the Motor Claim Form submitted by the complainant before the first opposite party. A7 : Letter dated 16.05.2008 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Carbon copy of the letter dated 07.08.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) P.G. Vijayan, Vijaya Bhavan, Edapariyaram, Elanthoor Village, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Pazhavangadi P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta. (3) Manager, HDFC Bank, Aban Towers, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
