BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.344 of 2014

Date of Instt. 01.10.2014

Date of Decision :14.05.2015

Ravi Pal son of Roop Lal, R/o H.No.34, Village Khambra, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. National Insurance Co.Ltd, D.O.I, Near Redisson Hotel, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager/Manager.

2. National Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional Office, SCO.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through Divisional Manager.

3. Indusind Bank, 289, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, TV Studio Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Person.

4. Indusind Bank Ltd, Consumer Finance Division No.34, GS Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 through its Manager/Authorized Person.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.JS Basra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.KAPS Rana Adv., counsel for OP No.4.

Opposite party No.3 exprate.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a vehicle make Alfa Passenger (Mahindra and Mahindra) three wheeler bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-BN-1455, Chasis No.MAILE2FY8 B5L51755, Engine No.AIL0566679 make 2011 and the same was duly insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.401104153467. The said vehicle was hypothecated with opposite parties No.3 and 4. Unfortunately, the said vehicle of the complainant was stolen on 27.11.2012 in front of Maya Hotel, Jalandhar when the complainant was going to attend the court proceedings and intimation qua the stolen/theft of abovesaid vehicle has been intimated to the opposite parties as well as the concerned police station i.e PS Navi Baradari, Jalandhar by the complainant. The complainant also moved an application to police, which was duly endorsed by the concerned official. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and requested them for payment of the insured amount as per the assurance given by the opposite parties at the time of obtaining the policy for payment of opposite parties No.3 and 4. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant had paid the amount to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and hired the services of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 clearly refused to redress the claim of the complainant and thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 17.7.2014 through his counsel, which was duly received by opposite parties No.1 and 2, but even after receiving the notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 failed to make the payment to the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay him the claim amount. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties no.1,2 and 4 appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2 pleaded that the complainant has not lodged any claim qua the theft of the vehicle in question with the answering opposite parties, that being so there is no question of making payment of any claim to the complainant, thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite parties. It is wrong that intimation qua the stolen/theft of above said vehicle was given by complainant to the answering opposite parties as well as the concerned police station i.e PS Navi Baradari, Jalandahr. It is wrong that the complainant also moved an application to the police which was duly endorsed by the concerned official. It is wrong that thereafter complainant approached answering opposite parties and requested for payment of the insured amount as per the assurance given by the opposite parties at the time of obtaining the policy as alleged. However, it is pertinent to mention that no claim whatsoever qua the theft of the abovesaid vehicle has been reported by complainant to answering opposite parties. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its written reply, opposite party No.4 pleaded that the true facts is that the complainant had entered into loan agreement with opposite party No.4 regarding the purchase of vehicle in question vide agreement No.PJJ00707G dated 27.12.2011 and as per the loan agreement executed between the parties, the finance amount is Rs.1,25,000/-, interest Rs.46,875/-, total amounting to Rs.1,79,075/-, which the complainant is liable to pay in monthly installments of Rs.5215/- per month w.e.f 29.12.2011 to 21.11.2014. However, the complainant had committed default in making monthly installments to the opposite party No.4 and as a result the officials of opposite party No.4 visited the complainant many times for the recovery of outstanding amount from the complainant but the complainant delayed the same on one pretext or the other and finally failed to make the payment to the opposite party. As a result, the matter was referred to the arbitrator as per loan agreement executed between the parties. It is incorrect that the vehicle in question was stolen on 27.11.2012 in front of the Maya Hotel, Jalandhar when the complainant was going to attend the court proceedings and it is also incorrect that intimation qua the stolen/theft of abovesaid vehicle has been intimated to the opposite parties as well as the concerned police station i.e PS Navi Baradari, Jalandhar by the complainant. It denied the other material averments of the complainant.

4. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant has got insured his above said vehicle with opposite party insurance company but it was stolen on 27.11.2012 and intimation regarding the same was given to the opposite parties as well as police station i.e PS Navi Baradari, Jalandhar. He further contended that the opposite party insurance company has not decided the claim amount of the complainant nor paid the claim amount to him. On the other hand, the opposite party insurance company has specifically pleaded that the complainant did not lodge any claim for the theft of the vehicle in question and as such the question of making the payment of claim to him does not arise. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that he intimated the theft of the insured vehicle to the insurance company. For the first time, he can be said to have intimated the insurance company in this regard vide legal notice dated 17.7.2014 Ex.C3. The opposite party insurance company sent reply to the notice which is on record wherein it has specifically mentioned that no intimation qua the theft of the above said vehicle was given by the complainant and to the police station. The theft took place on 27.11.2012 and whereas legal notice Ex.C3 is dated 17.7.2014. The complainant has failed to show if he ever sent any written intimation or letter to the opposite party insurance company regarding the theft of the insured vehicle. So it is not proved that the complainant has sent intimation in respect of the stolen vehicle to the opposite party insurance company before sending the legal notice dated 17.7.2014 Ex.C3. When the claim is not proved to have been lodged with the opposite party insurance company, the question of deciding the same by the insurance company does not arise. The claim is to be decided by the insurance company. The complainant has also prayed for restraining the opposite parties No.3 and 4 from initiating proceedings for recovery of the loan amount till the decision of the complaint. So, this prayer has become infructuous with the decision of this complaint. Moreover, the opposite parties No.3 and 4 can not be restrained from initiating proceedings for recovery of the loan amount in accordance with law.

9. In view of above circumstances, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to treat the above said legal notice dated 17.7.2014 and the present complaint as intimation of theft of the insured vehicle by the complainant to it. The complainant is directed to furnish any document which he may desire to the insurance company within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and after expiry of said period of 15 days, the opposite party insurance company shall positively decide the claim of the complainant one way or another i.e either to accept it or reject it on the basis of documents which the complainant may further submit to the insurance company and also on the basis of document produced by him during the trial of the present complaint, within two months In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.05.2015 Member Member President