Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/114/2017

Fareed Khan s/o Haneeph Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Tata Motors Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet Kumar

09 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 114 /2017

 

Fareed Khan s/o Hanif Khan r/o Shahdoli Mandi ka Bas, Mandu ka Bas, Alwar, Raj.

Vs.

Manager, Tata Motors Finance, Shop No. G 2-3-4, Ground floor, Data Arked, Station Road, Alwar, Rajasthan & ors.

 

Date of Order 9.5.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Manjeet Kumar counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint is filed on 4.10.2017 with the contention that complainant is the registered owner of truck no. RJ 02 GB 3883 which was insured with non-applicant no. 2 &

2

 

3 and non-applicant no.1 is the financier. On 8.3.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. hose pipe was get leaked. The complainant left the truck on the spot and went to have a fresh hose pipe. About 9.00 p.m. when he reached the spot again the truck was found stolen. Incident was informed to the truck owner. Control room was also informed. He also tried to lodged the First Information Report but it was refused. Hence, next day a criminal complaint has been filed. The truck is financed with non-applicant no.2 and insurance claim has not been allowed to the complainant, the non-applicant no.1 could not recover the loan amount and present complaint is filed claiming the relief that loan should not be recovered unless the insurance claim is paid and further more compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

 

From the contention raised in the complaint the case of the complainant is that his vehicle was stolen and Anx. 3 complaint is the prima facie evidence of the incident but no deficiency has been pleaded against the insurance company

3

 

and even the insurance company has not been informed about the loss, there is no pleading to this effect in the original complaint. Para no. 2 of the complaint clearly shows that the vehicle was left unattended on highway and even no relief has been claimed against non-applicant no. 2 & 3.

 

The only relief which has been claimed in the complaint is that the loan should not be recovered unless the insurance claim is paid but no tri party agreement between the finance company, insurance company and the complainant is submitted which could fortify the contention. When loan has been taken by the complainant it is the duty of the complainant to pay it timely and no condition has been shown which could put the duty on the finance company not to recover the loan unless the claim is paid.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is totally misconceived, not maintainable and stands rejected.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

 

nm