BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.30 of 2019
Date of Instt. 29.01.2019
Date of Decision: 16.02.2021
Sarishti Pal Jalota Son of Late Shri Kedar Nath Jalota, prop M/s Sahil Sales, 384, Neela Mehal, Jalandhar, resident of House No.40, New Kailash Nagar, Jalandhar
..........Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited opp Commissioner Office, BMC Chowk, Branch No.3, Jalandhar.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, regional office Grand Walk Mall, 4th floor, Firozepur Road, Ludhiana.
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Regd office 3, Middeton Street Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071.
4. Stan Auto Pvt. Ltd., G. T. Road, Opp. Delhi Public School, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Vishal Bajaj, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. R. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.
Sh. Arun K Walia, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.4.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has made an order No.SOB17000277 for purchase of Ertiga Car to the OP No.3 on 17.05.2018 and the complainant has purchased the said car on 22.05.2017, model Ertiga vide Chassis No.MA3FLEB1S00464010, Engine No.D13A-5438777, 1248 CC, year of mfg. 2017, for Rs.8,37,021.23/- including value added tax @ 12% and surcharge on VAT @ 10%, vide delivery no.3504 and key no.5071. That at the time of delivery the complainant purchased insurance policy of National Insurance Company Limited for the above said vehicle and paid premium to the tune of Rs.19,542/- as per insurance policy No.40435/17/6100000651 through agent Shri Ashwani Kumar, vide Agent Code 404305 as per insurance policy. That the vehicle is duly registered vide registration No.PB-08-DR-5914 and the same was parked at the vacant plot near by the house of the complainant which has been stolen by somebody else from the said place on the intervening day of 13.02.2018 to 14.02.2018, when it was parked at the vacant plot near by the house of the complainant. In this respect first information report was made to the police division No.8, vide FIR No.0043 dated 14.02.2018 under Section 379 IPC. That at the time of purchase of car the Stan Auto Company gave assurance that the car cannot be theft by anybody as the alarm system is installed in the cars which fully procure and alert from theft of the vehicle in question and as and when anybody will try to theft then the Alarm will start and will alert to the complainant, but all in vain. In this way the Stan Auto has also cheated with the complainant for the reason best known to him as the system of Alarm become fail for all intents and purposes. That the complainant has made several request to the OPs for his claim, but his bonafide and genuine request has been discarded and brushed aside for the reason best known to the OPs and necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of Rs.8,37,021/- towards cost of the vehicle with Rs.1,00,000/- loss incurred as compensation for mental tension agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the realization of the claimed amount and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs No.1 to 3 as the same has been filed without any cause of action, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complaint is pre-matured, as the same is pending for processing and settlement as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs as the complainant has failed to fulfill the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 by not providing non-possession certificate from the financer, as the vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank Ltd. and the present status of the Court case in the FIR regarding theft of the insured car despite letter dated 15.01.2019 and 04.02.2019. Instead of fulfilling the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 for settling the claim the complainant has preferred to file complaint before this Commission. It is further alleged that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3. On merits, the purchase of the car is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.4 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. It is further alleged that the complaint of the complainant against the OP No.4 is false and frivolous as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complainant has not come with clean hand before this Forum, as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further alleged that there is neither any deficiency in service nor any sort of unfair trade practice, nor any negligence on the part of the OP No.4 as such the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the vehicle and insured the same is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
7. Precisely, the case of the complainant is only that he had purchased an Ertiga Car from OP No.4 for a sum of Rs.8,37,021.23/- from OP No.3 on 17.05.2018, which is evident from Ex.C-1 and the same was insured by OP/National Insurance Company and the premium of the policy is Rs.19,542/-, which is evident from Ex.C-2. Thereafter, on the intervening day of 13/14.02.2018 the car was stolen when the same was parked at the vacant plot near the house of the complainant and in this regard FIR was lodged, copy of the same is Ex.C-3. At the time of purchase of the car the Stan Auto Company gave assurance that the car cannot be theft by anybody as the alarm system is installed in the car which fully procure and alert from theft of the vehicle in question and as and when anybody will try to theft then the alarm will start and will alert to the complainant but all in vain and regarding this the complainant several time visited to the OPs for his claim, but the OPs failed to do so and as such, the complainant filed the present complaint.
8. On the other hand, the OPs submitted that the complaint is pre-matured, as the same is pending for processing and settlement as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant can not take advantage of his own wrongs as the complainant has failed to fulfill the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 by not providing Non-possession certificate from the financer, as the vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank Ltd. and the present status of the Court Case in the FIR regarding theft of the insured car despite letter dated 15.01.2019 and 04.02.2019. Instead of fulfilling the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 for settling the claim, the complainant has preferred to file complaint before this Commission and as such, the present complaint is pre-matured.
9. To prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, Copy of Tax/Vehicle & Charges Invoice Ex.C-1, Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.C-2 and Copy of FIR Ex.C-3.
10. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs produced on the file one affidavit of Manoj Kumar Branch Manager (National Insurance Company) Ex.OP1 to 3/X wherein he submitted in Para No.2 of preliminary objections that the complaint is pre-matured, as the same is pending for processing and settlement as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs as the complainant has failed to fulfill the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 by not providing Non-possession certificate from the financer, as the vehicle was financed by HDFC Bank Ltd. and the present status of the Court Case in the FIR regarding theft of the insured car despite letter dated 15.01.2019 and 04.02.2019. Instead of fulfilling the requirements of the OPs No.1 to 3 for settling the claim, the complainant has preferred to file complaint before this Commission and further brought on the file Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.OP1 to 3/A, Copy of letter of intimation is Ex.OP1 to 3/B and letter dated 15.01.2019 and 04.02.2019 are Ex.OP1 to 3/C and Ex.OP1 to 3/D.
11. After considering the overall facts and circumstances, one thing is clear that the car of the complainant was stolen and regarding this FIR was lodged and complainant filed his claim. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 to 3 admitted that the car of the complainant was insured by them and after filing the claim by the Complainant, the OPs demanded some documents which are as under:-
1. Non-repossession certificate from the financer.
2. Present status of the court case.
The above information demanded by the OP from the complainant vide letter dated 15.01.2019 as Ex.OP No.1 to 3/C for settling his claim, but the complainant failed to fulfill these formalities and then again the OP sent a reminder dated 04.02.2019 as Ex.OP No.1 to 3/D in which the OP sought/demanded same information/documents like letter dated 15.01.2019, but again the complainant failed to submit these documents. So, from these letters dated 15.01.2019 Ex.OP No.1 to 3/C and letter dated 04.02.2019 Ex.OP No.1 to 3/D, one thing is clear that the complainant totally failed to submit these document to the OP for settling his claim and also one point is arisen that the car was financed, but this fact has not mentioned by the complainant in his complaint, this fact has come out from the document Ex.C-1 which is Invoice. So, accordingly, we find that the complaint of the complainant is premature and accordingly, the complainant is directed to file Non-repossession certificate from the financer and Present status of the court case and thereafter, the OPs will settle the claim of the complainant according to terms and conditions. The complainant will submit these documents and thereafter, the OPs will take 30 days to settle the claim of the complainant on either side and after that, if the complainant will not satisfy with the settlement of the claim by OPs, then the complainant has liberty to file a fresh complaint and accordingly, this complaint is disposed off. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Kuljit Singh
16.02.2021 Member President
