In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 405 / 2009.
1) Bee Pee Jay Finance Limited,
Annapurna Apartments, Suit No. 7F,
68, Ballygynge Circular Road, Kolkata-700019. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) National Insurance Co. Ltd.
3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071.
2) Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 7, Rabindra Sarani, Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia, Pin-741201. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 31/08/2012.
The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the o.ps with an allegation of deficiency in service, which is within the scope and ambit of COPRA,1986.
In a nut-shell, the case of ltrhe complainant is that the complainant being hirer had put on hire one Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle to its hirer namely, Md.Ayuib Sahaji, owner of the vehicle in question. The insurance policy in question was taken by the hirer on 11.10.04. from the issuing office of the o.p.1 being the o.p.2 in the instant case.The Insurance of the said Motor Cycle was under the Hypothecation agreement which was appeared from the endorsement of the policy issued by the ops. The aforesaid motor cycle was duly registered with the office of the registering authority. In term of the insurance policy the vehicle in question was covered by the Insurer in case of theft of the vehicle. It is also submitted by the complainant that on 06.06.05. that vehicle was stolen from the custody of the aforesaid hire. And that fact of theft was reported to concerned P.S. on 01.07.05. Upon completion of the investigation in the aforesaid case the police had submitted its final report on 22.08.05. and the o.p.s through a letter dated 17.06.08. informed the insured, with a copy to the complainant intimating to the effect that “we are closing your claim file on account of the following reasons claim intimated after unreasonable delay and hence liability not admissible as per N.C.D.R. Commission, New Delhi dated 13.05.2003. We absolve ourselves from any further liabilities arising out of this claim…”
Thereafter, the complainant time and again requested the ops to review the decision of repudiation of the claim in question but all in vain. Hence, the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum and he has prayed for relief as mentioned in the complaint petition.
O.p.s have entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. After scrutinizing every nook and corner of the instant case and hearing every tit bits from both the parties it is observed that the complainant is the financer in relation to the vehicle in question and the insured person is not at all the party to the instant case. As per the C.P. Act, 1986 there is no relation between the complainant and the o.ps. as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ i.e. insurer. In case of insurance only the relation of insured and insurer is within the purview of C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, we are strongly of the opinion that there is no relationship between the complainant and o.ps. as ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ respectively.
Therefore, we hold that the instant case has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in this Forum within the meaning as provided in the C.P. Act, 1986.
Hence, the case is dismissed on contest without cost.
Supply free certified copy of this order to the parties as per provision of Section 21(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulation.
