Date of Filling     :  26.07.2013.

                                                                                           Date of Disposal :  26.04.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                    TMT. S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                           …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.40/2013

(Dated this Tuesday the 26^th day of April 2016)

Mr. S. Subramani,

S/o. Mr. Srinivasan,

No.44, Dharmaraja Koil Street,

Periyapalayam,

Uttukottai Taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                     … Complainant.

                                                          / Versus /

1. The Managing Director,

    Indo Asia Finance Limited,

    No.15, New Giri Road,

    T. Nagar,

    Chennai - 600 017.

2. The Manager,

Claims Department,

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No.6, Haddows Road, IV Floor,

Chennai - 600 034.                                  … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 24.03.2016 in the presence of Tmt. D. Manoranjitham, Counsel for the Complainant, the 1^st opposite party set ex-parte for non appearance and  Tmt. A. Latha Maheswari, Counsel for  the 2^nd opposite party and having perused the documents and evidences of the Complainant and the 2^nd  opposite party this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the 2^nd opposite party to settle the theft claim, to direct the 1^st opposite party to furnish the clear statement reflecting the adjustments made from the claim amount received for the 2^nd opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with cost.

1.      The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-

The complainant had entered into Contract having No.SHRI-HP0041 with the 1^st opposite party on 03.05.2006 for the purchase of the lorry bearing registration no.AP 16 TU 2338 and was regular in the payment of the Equated Monthly Installments (EMI).The second insurance policy period starting from 01.07.2007 to Midnight of 30.06.2008 the policy was availed with the 2^nd opposite party having policy no.201372314101632.In the said insurance policy it was reflected that the said vehicle was under Hire Purchase Agreement with Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.The complainant had never entered into any agreement or contract with the Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and only the gonads / agents from the 1^st opposite party is regular in threatening the complainant and his family members for no default or valid reasons.

7.       The contention of the written version of the 2^nd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The opposite party denies all the allegations in the complaint except those that are admitted herein.  The 2^nd opposite party has not received any such (theft) intimation of the vehicle theft. The complainant has not chosen to send the intimation regarding the vehicle theft to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party issued Insurance Policy / Certificate to the complainant’s vehicle subject to conditions.  The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation claimed by the complainant.  Hence, this compliant is liable to be dismissed.

8.       In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A8 were marked.  While so, on the side of the  2^nd opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed  and no document is  marked on his side.

9.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?        
10.  
11.  
12.  

Regarding this point, on perusal of the averments made in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that the vehicle bearing registration no. AP 16 TU 2338 which was purchased on the Hire Purchase Agreement with the 1^st opposite party under Ex.A1 and insured the said vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party through Ex.A2, the certificate of insurance along with the terms and condition which are all not a disputed one. In such circumstances, it is further seen from the evidence of the complainant is that the above said vehicle was stolen on 22.05.2008 and immediately, the complainant informed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and lodged the FIR at C-2 Periyapalayam Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime no.387/2008 on 29.05.2008 in which the FIR is marked as Ex.A3.In this connection,Ex.A5, the Final Report is filed by the concerned Police Station to the Judicial Magistrate, Utthukottai.

In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 26^th   April 2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

Documents filed by the opposite party:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT