This C.D coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri P.Ravindar Reddy , Advocate for the Complainant and in the presence of Sri P.S.Rani, Advocate for the opposite party ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following :-
ORDER
(Per Smt. V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )
1. This complaint filed under section 12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased an Auto bearing No. AP 20 V 3705 and insured the said Auto with the opposite party and the said Auto was registered in R.T.A. Office, Khammam and the Insurance Policy obtained by the complainant vide policy No.610902/31/02/20366 was valied from 11-3-2003 to 10-3-2004 and the said policy obtained by the complainant was comprehensive policy and on 26-8-2003 at 2.p.m. the complainant went to watch a movie by keeping the said Auto in the Auto stand of Cenema Theatre i.e. ,Mukunda Talkies, situated at Mahabooba Bad, Warangal
-2-
District, and after watching the movie the complainant found his Auto missing from the Auto stand and he searched for the Auto here and there and as it was not traced the complainant lodged a report to the policy’s Mahabooba Bad, I Town and the Police registered a crime vide Cr.No.213/2003 U/S 379 of IPC and issued FIR to that effect and after completion of investigation the police filed final report and referred the case as “UN-DETECTED” and the complainant immediately after the incident submitted the relevant documents to the opposite party and claimed the amount, and as there is no response from the opposite party the complainant after making so many attempts approached the Forum by claiming the amount of Rs.95,000/- towards damages for missing the Auto and also claimed, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and interest of 24% per annum and costs.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed xerox copy of (1) FIR dated3-9-03 (2) Final report dated 30-7-04 (3) certificate of registration dated 26-3-03 (4) Form P.C dated 27-3-03 (5) policy copy.
4. After receipt of notice from the Forum the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed counter affidavit of their Branch Manager and denied the allegations leveled against them in the complainant .
5. The opposite party admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of the complainant, denied the other allegations made in para no.3 regarding the watching of movie and missing of Auto from the Auto stand. The opposite party further contended that the alleged missing of Auto was took place on 26-8-03 and the complainant given report on 3-9-2003 to the police and the police filed final report on 30-7-2004 and as such the allegations that the complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite party does not arise and as per the opposite party when the complainant approached them, they advised him to produce original R.C., FIR, Keys of the vehicle, Charge sheet or final report, but the
-3-
complainant did not submitted the relevant and required documents, the complainant submitted xerox copies of R.C. and final report and once again in the month of August, 2004 the opposite party requested the complainant to furnish all the relevant documents, but there is no response from the complainant and on 13-8-04 the Branch Manager of Soni Finance corporation, Hyderabad addressed a letter to the opposite party to settle the claim without furnishing the documents and as there is no response from the complainant, the opposite party unable to settle the claim and the opposite party is waiting for the documents from the complainant and meanwhile the complainant approached the forum and the opposite party further pleaded that there is no deficiency of services on their part and they tried to settle the claim and waited for the documents to be furnished by the complainant and therefore requested to dismiss the complaint. The opposite party further contended that the Soni Finance company with whom the vehicle Hypothicated was not made as a party to the proceedings and as such pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party to the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Along with the counter affidavit the opposite party filed original copies of (1) Letter addressed by the Soni Finance Corporation to the opposite Party dated 30-8-04 (2) Certified copy of policy dated 11-3-03 with terms and conditions.
6. The complainant filed written arguments.
7. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration before the Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not.
-4-
8. As seen from the averments of the complaint the Auto was missed on 26-8-2003 and the report was lodged on 3-9-2003 before the police, Mahabooba Bad and the opposite party even though denied this contention mainly raised the objection regarding the non-furnishing of relevant documents and keys of the Auto and the complainant did not contested and rebutted the allegation leveled against him. In the counter affidavit of the opposite party and moreover the attitude of the Soni Finance Company, who wrote a letter to the opposite party to settle the claim without furnishing all the documents, throws some doubt regarding the contents of the complaint. The complainant who mentioned that Auto was purchased with finance amount, did not revealed the name of the finance company to whom he Hypothicated the vehicle and obtained amount and the complainant did not even made the financier of the Auto as a party to the proceedings and as such this Forum feels that the Soni Financiers who interfered into the matter by way of writing a letter to the opposite party also a necessary party to the proceedings and as this point is answered accordingly infavour of the opposite party the other important point to be discussed in this case is that the non-furnishing of the relevant documents and keys by the complainant or the particulars of the financier with whom the Auto was Hypothicated. The opposite party categorically stated that the complainant failed to furnish the relevant documents and key’s required and requested by them to settle the claim and stated that they unable to settle the claim as there is no response from the complainant. As seen from the complaint and the documents available the opposite party did not repudiated the claim at all and as such this forum cannot held any deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party when there is no
repudiation of claim by them and moreover the complainant failed to establish
the fact that the opposite party repudiated his claim and in the absence of any proof in this regard this forum cannot held the opposite party liable to pay the
-5-
compensation as prayed by the complainant. Further the opposite party showed their willingness to settle the claim on furnishing relevant documents and keys, as such the complainant is advised to knock the doors of the opposite party once again with all the requirements needed by the opposite party in this regard and the opposite party is hereby directed to consider the claim of the complainant. If it is otherwise perfect within the rules and regulations formulated by them.
9. In the result the C.D. is dismissed without any costs.
Dictation to Stenographer transcribed by him. Corrected and pronounced by us in this Forum on this 12th day of February, 2007.
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
