Orissa

Jajapur

CC/89/2017

SK Manjur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,ShriRam General Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K Nayak

30 May 2018

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 30th day of  May,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.89 of 2017

SK.Manjur    , S/O  SK.Abdul Jalal

At.Sayedpur, P.O/P.S. Binjharpur  

Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                     

                                                  (Versus)

1.Managing Director,Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd, E-8 .

EPIP Sitapura Industrial Area ,Jajpur,Rajsthan.

2.Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Ltd, 1^st floor,Nayak Building

Near Chandikhole chhak, P.O.Sunguda,P.S.Barchana

 Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                  ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

                                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                       Sri R.K.Nayak, Sri S.Sahoo ,Advocate ,

For the Opp.Parties : No.1                Sri  S.K.Mishra, Advocate.

For the Opp.parties : No.2                 Mr.P.K.Ray, A.R.Sethy,Advocates  

                                                                                                     Date of order:   30 .05.2018.

MISS  SMITA  RAY  , L A D Y   M E M B E R .

Deficiency in Insurance service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The facts as  stated in the  complaint petition is that the petitioner purchased a 2^nd hand vehicle with the financial assistance of O.p.no. 2. As  per instruction of O.P.no.2 the petitioner insured the vehicle with the  O.P.no.1. The vehicle was insured for a period of 12 months from 04.06.10 to midnight 03.06.2011.  covering interalia the risk of loss or damage of the motor vehicle.

            The petitioner had appointed one Babuni Samal ,S/O Gopinath Samal of Vill.Mallipur,P.O/P.S. Binjharpur Dist.Jajpur  as the driver of the vehicle on the basis of monthly salary, particularly for a period of 40 days since  he was on HAZ  from  10.06.2010 to 20.07.2010 and  entrusted the charge of the vehicle to him  for  the said period . He  has  no male member of his family to take care of  the vehicle .  After returning   from HAZ  on 20.07.10 he could not trace out the driver or the vehicle in spite of best efforts and necessary  diligence  .Thereafter the petitioner lodged the F.I R at  Binjharpur P.S on 21.07.2010  and intimated the Insurance company   about the theft of the vehicle    but the police did not registered  the case, for which  the petitioner initiated a Criminal proceeding by lodging a complain in the court of Learned SDJM,Jajpur vide ICC No.30.06.2010 .  As per the direction of the learned SDJM,Jajpur U/S 156 (3) CrPC the Binjharpur police station registered a case against the driver Babuni Samal and submitted the charge sheet U/S 379 & 406 IPC  corresponding to GR Case No. 64/2011 which  is pending in the said court due to absconding of the accused driver .  The theft occurred from 10.06.2010 to 20.07.2010  when the Insurance was valid for the period from 04.06.2010 to 03.06.2011  and the petitioner is entitled to Insurance claim of Rs.2,00,000/- . The petitioner lodged the Insurance claim to  O.P no.1 on 21.06.2010 but the O.p.no.1 has not yet settled the Insurance claim and remained silent .Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P  to pay Insurance claim of Rs.2,00,000/- along with compensation and monetary loss of Rs.5,00,000/- .

            After notice  the  O.P.no.1  and 2 appeared  through their learned counsels  and filed their written version   taking the  following stands .

1. That the above case  filed by the petitioner  is not maintainable  in eye of law .

That the complaint  petition   is completely silent about the regd no. of the   stolen vehicle and the  date of theft  about the  details insurance policy particulars of the stolen vehicle  and the O.P.no.1 does not admit the same . The complainant  should be put to produce  all such documents to substantiate  his claim .The complainant intentionally created a false story to avoid  repayment of finance money to the financer and designed  false pleas to get easy money    from the  O.P  by mis leading the Hon’ble fourm  and this being a manipulated  storey and the case of theft has been    well planned  and it was an afterthought  and  it need to be dismissed imposing heavy cost.

            That as per the allegation of the complainant  driver Babuni  samal stolen his truck  and he has been absconded   and a truck is not a small particle like  cat, rat  and dog which can be kept hidden  for  years together so also the alleged driver .  According to the complainant the incident      took place  within the period from 10.06.2010 to 20.07.2010   but neither the driver present in the vehicle nor the police trace it out  .The insurance company was intimated immediately  regarding his alleged theft  and with ill intention ICC case has been filed creating a forged  claim . Further the complainant in his  effort to build  the fraud claim has not  disclosed the Regd . No. of the  vehicle, insurance policy , driving license details  of the alleged driver of his vehicle for a long period and the case has been filed in the year 2017 i.e on 21.12.17 after  a long  period of  more than 7 years  and  beyond the period of limitation Act. and the complainant nowhere has  filed any such petition praying for condonation of delay in filing the complaint  before this Fora .  Therefore the  case                                  need to be dismissed

            The O.P. No.2 also has taken the stand in the written version  as follows

1 That the complaint  case is  not maintainable  against O.P.no.2.

The O.P.no.2 is the financeing   company who has  financed   Tata SE 1510 FBT  vehicle after due deliberation a loan-cum- hypothecation  Agreement  i.e on  31.07.09  for the said vehicle . The aforesaid amount is repayable in 23 monthly installments  starting from 05.09.2009 to 05.07.2011  at the rate of Rs.5,977/- The petitioner has availed  one working capital loan of Rs.10,297/-. The complainant  has   failed  to pay the installment dues on due dates .  The complainant  has paid an amount of Rs.27,769/-  to O.P.no.2  and the arrear of Rs.3,58,758/  till 12.01.18 against the petitioner .  That the O.P.no.2  is entitled to get the claim amount directly  from   O.P.no.1 being the financer and the real owner of the vehicle .The vehicle stands hypothecated before O.p.no.2  and the O.p.no. 2 is entitled to get Rs.3,58,758/-  as on 12.01.2018  under the above agreement .  The claim is to be settled as per  settlement policy of all Insurance companies  vide  clause 7 of the Motor Guide lines . The relevant clause of the said Motor Guideline (version 1.0 ,January,2007) is quoted herewith for ready reference :                              

“It is hereby declared and agreed that the vehicle insured is pledged to /hypothecated with ….(herein after referred to as pledge) and it is further understood and agreed that the pledge is interested in any monies which but for this endorsement would be payable to the insurer under this policy in respect of such loss or damage to the vehicle insured as can not be made good by repair and / or replacement of parts and such monies shall be paid to the pledge as long as they are the pledge of the vehicle insured and their receipt shall be a full and final discharge to the insurer in respect of such loss or damage.”

That the prayer portion of the  complaint petition  against whom reliefs have been sought for are not clearly  mentioned  and it is presumed that the same against O.P.no.1 as there is no whisper or  any   allegation against the  O.P.no.2 . It is therefore prayed the case is liable to be dismissed .

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned counsel of both the sides .After perusal of the record  along with documents we observed that the petitioner  purchased the alleged vehicle with the financial assistance of O.P.no.2  and the said vehicle insured  with  O.P. no.1.

It is alleged by the petitioner that the said vehicle was stolen by the driver and unknown culprits during the subsistence of the policy  when  the petitioner had been to HAZ  . But after receipt of the claim the o.p.no.1 did not  settled  the  Insurance  claim . On the other hand the O.P.no.1 categorically denied  the allegation and has stated in the written version  that the theft of the alleged vehicle has been   created   and is prepared by the petitioner . It is also a fact that there is a criminal   case , bearing  case No.64/2011 is pending before the learned SDJM,Jajpur   regarding the same  matter. The petitioner  filed the  dispute on 21.12.17  before this Fora . That the cause of action arises  in between  10.06.10 to 20.07.10 .There is no clarification  regarding the delay in filing the complaint petition under what circumstances  7 years have been lapses for filing the present dispute   and there no Condo nation petition of delay from the side of the petitioner . Accordingly we are unanimously in the view that the dispute is barred by limitation as per sec.24(a) of C.P. Act 1986.

                                                        O R D E R

Hence the C.C.  Case is dismissed on the point of limitation .

 

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th  day of  May,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.