Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

Consumer Complaint No. 420

Instituted on :  01.10.2020

Decided on   :  13.11.2024

Anil (aged 39 years) Son of Sh. Ramphal resident of village BhainiChanderpal, Tehsil - Meham, District - Rohtak.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Vs

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 313, Model Town, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.

 2. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. Plot no. Y-10 Block-EP, Sector-V Salt Lake City, Kolkotta through its Branch Manager, Namaste Chowk, In front of J.C.B Showroom, Above Canara Bank, Karnal, Haryana.

……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Jai Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                                      ORDER

SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant, are thatthe tractor bearing registration no. HR-15D-2207 of the complainant was insured with the opposite party no.1 vide policy no. 35380031170100001708, valid from 10.05.2017 to 09.05.2018 and the same was financed from opposite party no.2. The said tractor was stolen on 21.02.2018 by some unknown person and an FIR no.107 of 2018 under section 379 IPC was got registered in P.S. Meham. Information of the theft was given to the insurance company and relevant documents, RC, Insurance and two keys of tractor were deposited by the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party no.1 failed to pass the claim despite his repeated requests. A legal notice dated 07.02.2020 was also served upon the opposite parties but they clearly refused to make the payment of claim amount to the complainant. The opposite party no.2 is also imposing penalty over due amount due to non payment of loan instalments, which the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay. As the vehicle being financed and stolen, the complainant is unable to earn anything and is facing financial hardship as well as great mental tension and harassment. The act of opposite party No.1 of not disbursing the genuine claim of the complainant is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that the opposite party no.1 maykindly  be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.7,50,844/- plus overdue charges alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft of vehicle till its actual realisation, to paycompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in the services as well as for causing mental tension, harassment etc. and Rs. 31,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Upon registered notice, the opposite parties appeared but they have filed their written statements separately. The opposite party no.1 in its reply took some preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is false, frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed, and further that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. It is further submitted that after receiving the intimation dated 05.03.2018 regarding theft of vehicle no. HR-15D-2207 allegedly stolen on 21.02.2018, the respondent immediately appointed investigator to investigate the vehicle. After perusal of the claim file, the opposite party no.1 sent letter dated 01.03.2019, reminder dated 11.03.2019 and further reminder dated 19.03.2019 for providing required documents i.e. final report under section 173 Cr. P.C. from SP Office, reply within time, reason of late intimation, token tax receipt, both keys of vehicle and non repossession certificate from financer. But the insured failed to provide these documents and therefore, the opposite party no.1 again sent letters dated 04.07.2019, 20.07.2019 and final reminder dated 31.07.2019 for providing the alleged documents with loan statement of financer. For clarification of different aspects of the claim, the opposite party also sent letters dated 27.11.2019, reminder 06.01.2020 and final reminder dated 20.01.2020 to provide the clarification and documents of movement record, service record, submission of registration fee receipt and loan payment statement from financer. The complainant did not bother to cooperate in completion of documents for claim file and finally the opposite party had to close the claim file as ‘No Claim’ for want of documents. Thus the claim of insured is premature because the insured himself neither cooperated to fulfil the required documents nor provided any clarification. So, there is violation of condition nos. 1, 5 and 8 of Motor policy, therefore the claim of complainant is not maintainable. In reply on merits of the case, the complainant reiterated the contents of preliminary objections of the written statement and denied all the other allegations of the complainant taken in his complaint. It is prayed that in view of above submissions, the complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost as the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

3.                The opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted in the preliminary objections and in reply on merits of the case that complainant approached for seeking a financial assistance for his tractor New Holland 3630 TX plus and accordingly, loan agreement was executed between the parties. As per records, a loan facility of Rs.7,30,000/- was disbursed in the favour of complainant but it is contended that the complainant is misleading the Hon’ble Commission and the complainant is bound by loan agreement and is bound for the repayment of the loan amount. The opposite party has been unnecessary impleaded as a party to the instant case because in the entire pleadings of the complainant, the grievance of the complainant is against opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 has nothing to do with instant complaint. Being the finance company, the opposite party has full right to recover the loan money advanced being bound by the loan agreement executed between the complainant borrower and the opposite party no.2 and the complainant is legally liable to make the repayment of loan in time. Accordingly dismissal of complaint has been prayed for by opposite party no.2.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16 and closed the same on 01.06.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW 1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R15 in the evidence and closed the same on dated 18.04.2024. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also tendered affidavit Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R2/1 to Ex. R2/2 in the evidence and closed the same on dated 04.06.2024.

5.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                Some original documents and photocopies of documents have been placed on record but are not exhibited and the same are hereby placed on record as Annexure JNA to Annexure JNG.

7.                As per the written statement, the insurance company demanded some documents and clarifications from the complainant through letter dated 01.03.2019, 11.03.2019, 19.03.2019. Thereafter some more letters were written by the insurance company to the complainant on 04.07.2019, 20.07.2019, 31.07.2019, 27.11.2019, 06.01.2020 and 20.01.2020.  We have minutely perused  these letters issued by the respondent to the complainant. The first letter was written on dated 01.03.2019 which is placed on record as Ex.R4. Through this letter, insurance company demanded only report u/s 173, non-repossession certificate by the financer and both the keys. Thereafter some other documents and clarifications were demanded and finally letter was written on dated 20.01.2020, which is placed on record as Ex.R13 but the contents of the same are not visible. So we treat the final letter dated 06.01.2020 Ex.R11. Through this letter the opposite party demanded  movement register of the vehicle after date of registration, clarification regarding service record, registration fee receipt and loan payment statement. Meaning thereby the complainant had already submitted documents and clarifications with the respondent which were demanded by the insurance company through their previous letters dated 01.03.2019, 11.03.2019, 19.03.2019, 04.07.2019, 20.07.2019, 31.07.2019 & 27.11.2019 and now they demanded fresh clarifications and documents. As per our opinion, the vehicle in question is used for agriculture purpose so the movement record cannot be prepared. Secondly, the service record has already been submitted by the complainant with the insurance company. So as per our opinion, the claim has been repudiated on flimsy grounds and the complainant is entitled for the claim as per IDV of vehicle and as per policy Ex.R3, the same is Rs.693500/-

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of Rs.693500/-(Rupees six lac ninety three thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.10.2020 till its realisation, to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the financer i.e. opposite party no.2 for disbursement of loan amount of the complainant. It is made clear that after re-payment of loan amount, if any amount remains as surplus, the same shall be paid to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the signed form no.29-30, indemnity bond and subrogation letter in favour of the opposite party no.1 within 15 days from today and thereafter opposite party No.1 shall comply with the order dated 14.11.2024 of this Commission. Complainant is also directed to send a letter to the RTO for cancellation of R.C.

9.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.              Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

13.11.2024.

                                                          ........................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          TriptiPannu, Member.

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.