IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/37/2017.

 Date of Filing:              Date of Admission:       Date of Disposal:

     10.11.17                                      17.11.17                     05.12.2019

Complainant:             Md. Layeb Ali, S/o Md. Saber Ali,

                                    Vill. Talgoria, P.O. Bhattabati,

                                    P.S. nabagram, Dt. Murshidabad, Pin 742184.

-Vs-

Opposite Parties:       1. Manager, The New India Assu. Co. Ltd.,

                                    37, R N Tagore Road, P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,

                                    Dt. Murshidabad- 742101.

                                    2. Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

                                    P.O. & P.S. Berhampore, Dt. Murshidabad- 742101.

                                    3. Mafizul sk, S/o lt. Kajal Sk,

                                    Vill. Uttarpara, P.O. Radharghat,

                                    P.S. Berhampore, Dt. Murshidabad- 742101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant            : Sri. Sadhan Kumar Saha.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties      : Sri. Ajoy Kumar Bhattacharyya (OP No.1)

                                                                          Sri indranil Banerjee (OP No.2)

                                                                          Sri Swapan Mukherjee (OP No.3)

Present:          Sri AsishKumarSenapati………………….….......President.

Smt. AlokaBandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

Sri. Subir Sinha Ray…………………………………... Member.

FINAL ORDER

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            OneMd. Layeb Ali (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the caseagainst The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others(here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant was the owner of truck being registration No. WB57A/8564 in make model No. HCV/LPT 2515, chasis No. 427331LT2015803 and Engine                             No. 60L62525678. The said truck was purchased with the finance from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company, Berhampore, Murshidabad (OP No.2) together with the investment of Rs. 4,00,000/- only and the Complainant paid Rs. 26,365/- as Insurance Premium of the vehicle to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP No.1). The said vehicle was purchased on 28.02.15 and monthly EMI period was from 01.04.15 to 01.12.17. The Complainant paid 3 consecutive installments for 3 months and after that for the purpose of the repair of the said vehicle it was sent to the garage of Mafizul Sk. at Uttarpara More, Berhampore, Murshidabad (OP No.3). On 19.03.15 OP No.3 informed the Complainant that a truck has been stolen and after getting such information, the Complainant lodged a written complaint to the Berhampore Police Station and after enquiry the IO submitted the final report. The Complainant also informed the fact of theft of the said vehicle from the custody of the OP No.3 to the OP No.1. On 24.03.15 and same has been intimated to RTO on 14.04.15. After waiting for a long time, the Complainant again claim compensation from the OP No. 1 on 30.01.17 but all the letters submitted by the Complainant remain unaddressed. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case claiming Rs.8,00,000/- along with Rs.26,365/- as premium and also prays for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony.                                                                                The OP Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before this Forum after service of the notice. The OP No.1 stated in the written version that the Complainant kept the vehicle in the garage with the consent of the garage owner for the repair. So, it was the duty of the garage owner to look into the security of the vehicle. For this reason, the Complainant should have claim compensation to the garage owner and let them know about the compensation. So, the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant.

            The OP No.2 in the written version stated that the Complainant agreed to pay the loan in 33 equal monthly installments out of them the complainant paid only1 installment amounting Rs.17,729/-. So, the Complainant is not entitled in any relief prayed against the OP as because the vehicle No. WB57A8564 was hypothecated to this OP. The Complainant cannot avoid his liability for payment on the ground of theft of his vehicle. So, the case is liable to be dismissed and the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.                        The O.P3 after service of notice  appeared before this Forum but did not contest the case , so the case proceeded ex-parte against the O.P 3.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as he hired services of the OPs for consideration.

On going through the complaint, and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of the Complainant and the O.Ps, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

Undoubtedly, the Complainant was the owner of the truck being Registration No. WB57A/8564 in make Model No. HCV/LPT2515, Chasis No. 426031 LT 2015803 and Engine No. 60L62525678. It is also a fact that the said truck was purchased with the financial help of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company ( OP No.2) (vide annexure-1) and the said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( OP No.1) by paying the premium of Rs.26,365/- on 26.02.15 ( vide annexure-4)for the period 26/02/15 to 04/04 /15.

The Complainant stated in the complaint petition that for the purpose of repair he took the said vehicle in the garage of Mafujul Sk ( OP No.3) on 18.03.15. But on 19.03.15 the said OP No.3 informed the Complainant that the said truck had been stolen and the Complainant and OP No.3 tried to trace out the truck but they failed and lodged complaint before the Berhampore Police station and the Complainant claimed compensation from the OP No.1 as the vehicle was under the insurance coverage but till date the OP No.1 has not settled his claim.

The genuinety of the theft can be assumed because this fact has not been controverted by Insurance Company ( OP No.1) and is also supported by fact of untraced report submitted by the Police.

Admittedly, the Complainant purchased the said vehicle by taking the Financial help from the OP No.2 and it is evident from the record that the Complainant has paid only one installment out of agreed 33 installments to repay to loan amount of the O.P-2 . At the time of argument, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No.2 drew our attention to the document dated 07.03.17 filed by the OP No.2 issued by the OP No.1 ( New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) addressed to the O.P2 (Manager Cholamandalam Investment and Finance co. Ltd). It reads as follows-

“We would like to inform you that the theft claim under your policy No. 51290031140100000433 A/c Md. Layeb Ali against vehicle No. WB 57A/8564 has been settled Rs.7,98,500/-.Please submit the RTO From No.35 duly signed by you along with PAN which is very much required to release payment ” .The O.P. No. 2 also furnished Form 35 and NOC on 20.03.17 before the O.P. No.1.

From the above documents it is clear that the OP No.1 has settled the claim. Though the vehicle has been stolen from the custody of the OP No.3 but the Complainant has not claimed any remedy form the said OP No.3.  An integument of suspicion envelops the entire complaint.                                                               Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and argument advanced by both parties we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 as he has already settled the claim.The complainant has failed to prove his case. The Complainant has not claimed any redress against the OP Nos. 2&3.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 10.11.17 and admitted on 17.11.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

               Fees paid are correct.

               In the result, the consumer case fails. Hence, it is

                                      ORDERED

that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/37/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP Nos.1&2 without cost and dismissed ex-parte against the OP No.3 without cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

Member                                   Member                                                     President.