DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.578 of 20-12-2010 Decided on 08-06-2011
Harpreet Singh Sidhu, aged about 29 years son of Sh. Jagraj Singh, Resident of House No.22284, Street No.2, Dhobiana Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda. Tata Motors Finance Limited, SCF 133, Goniana Road, Near Alankar Cinema, Bathinda through its Collection Manager.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.Pardeep Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Indica Vista AQUA-TDI car bearing Chassis No.MAT608521APC21826, Engine No.475IDT14CZYP19775, temporary registration No.PB-03S/1591 from M/s Mehta Motors, Bathinda vide Invoice No.5611 dated 24.04.2010 for a sum of Rs.4,18,000/- and the same was got financed from the opposite party No.2 and was under hypothecation of the opposite party No.2. The complainant got his vehicle comprehensively insured with the opposite party No.1 for a sum assured of Rs.3,97,100/-vide Certificate cum policy No.25041031106120001779 w.e.f. 24.04.2010 to 23.04.2011 and the premium of Rs.10,804/- was paid to the opposite party No.1. On 01.05.2010 i.e. within a week from the date of purchase of the said vehicle, the abovesaid car of the complainant was parked in front of the house of the complainant at Bathinda and he had gone to his relatives and when he came back, the said car was not found and thereafter, he intimated the opposite party No.1 and as per the advise of the opposite party No.1, the complainant enquired about the car on his own level and ultimately on 08.05.2010, he reported the matter to Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and lodged an FIR No.329 dated 08.05.2010 u/s 379 IPC against unknown person. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 and requested to pay the lawful claim of the complainant as the aforesaid car of the complainant was insured with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to bring the 'Untraced Report' from the Police Authorities, only then his claim will be processed. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 to give the Untraced Report and at that time, the officials of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers and blank printed Forms without disclosing the contents to the complainant in the presence of associates of the complainant and got the entire formalities completed and assured the complainant to pay his lawful claim within a week. The complainant further alleged that the period of more than 6 months have already been elapsed from the date of production of untraced report and completing the entire formalities but the opposite party No.1 has not settled the claim of the complainant and has not paid the lawful claim of the complainant rather a week back, the opposite party No.1 demanded the R.C. of the said car, ignoring the fact that the car has been stolen just within a week from the date of its purchase. Further, since the date of purchase of the car, the complainant made the payment of installments to the opposite party No.2 without any fault and due to lapse on the part of the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1 and has denied the fact that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 or apprised it about the theft of the car or the opposite party No.1 ever advised the complainant to make enquiries about the whereabouts of the car at his own and then to report to the police. The complainant for the first time intimated on 12.05.2010 to the opposite party No.1. In the case of theft, the claim is payable only after issuance of untraced report by the Police Authorities. The complainant was advised to get Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question in the mean time from competent transport authority. The opposite party No.1 has also denied that the officials of the opposite party No.1 took the signatures of the complainant on blank papers or blank printed Forms without disclosing the contents thereof or they have ever assured the complainant that the claim will be paid within a week rather the complainant was requested to submit the copy of R.C. of the vehicle so that the claim may be processed but the complainant has not complied with the same till date. The R.C. of the vehicle can be got issued by enclosing FIR of the theft of the vehicle. The complainant has refused to get the R.C. of the said vehicle intentionally for the requirements of processing of the claim, as such, the claimant is not entitled for any interest or compensation. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded the opposite party No.2 i.e. Tata Motor Finance Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as also with the Reserve Bank of India u/s 451A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. In order to secure the amount of loan advanced to a customer, an agreement is executed between the parties and by the very nature of the agreement, it is pure and simple non-statutory contract. As held by the Hon'be National Commission in case titled Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Mrs. Sheela S. Kotecha, R.P. No.488 of 2005, decided on 16.09.2009. The opposite party No.2 had provided the finance facility of Rs.3,13,500/- and accordingly loan agreement No.5000541548 dated 24.04.2010 was entered into between the parties. As per the term of the agreement that was entered into between the parties was for a period of 60 months and the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount in equated monthly installments and an amount of Rs.3,53,926/- was due and outstanding as on 19.01.2011 (foreclosed amount). The complainant had hypothected the vehicle in question with the opposite party No.2 in terms of clause 12.1 of the agreement which provides that the loan to the complainant was secured by way of first and exclusive charge by way of hypothecation of the vehicle in favour of the opposite party No.2. The Insurance Policy duly bears the endorsement “Hypothecation Agreement with Tata Motors Finance Ltd.” In view of the terms and conditions of the agreement and policy, the opposite party No.2 is the beneficiary of the insurance policy. To support his version, the opposite party No.2 has cited the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Pramod Reghunath Salie Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2003 (1) CPJ 343, Chhabiran Sahu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2004 (II) CPJ 479 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case titled Krishna Food & Banking Industry P. Ltd. Vs. M/s New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2008 (13) Scale and IV (2008) CPJ 1 SC, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandewal, II (2006) CPJ 83 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Singh and in (2006) CPJ 144 (NC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak etc. 4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that his car bearing Chassis No.MAT608521APC21826, Engine No.475IDT14C ZYP19775, temporary registration No.PB-03S/1591 was stolen when he has parked the same in front of his house at Bathinda. The complainant lodged FIR in Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda vide FIR No.329 dated 08.05.2010. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with Untraced Report and had lodged the claim with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank papers and blank printed Forms without disclosing the contents to the complainant. The complainant has also complied with all the formalities. The opposite party No.1 assured that his claim would be paid within a week but even after a lapse of 6 months from the date of theft of the car and 1½ months has elapsed from the date of production of untraced report and other documents, the opposite party No.1 has not settled the claim of the complainant. It has demanded the R.C. of the said car and has ignored the fact that the car has been stolen just within a week from the date of its purchase. Since the date of purchase of the car, the complainant has been paying the installments to the opposite party No.2. In the present case, the insured amount is Rs.3,97,100/- and the complainant had paid 2 installments to the tune of Rs.13,800/- to the opposite party No.2. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that the complainant for the first time gave intimation about the theft of the car on 12.05.2010 to the opposite party No.1 and prior to that he never approached the opposite party No.1. On 12.05.2010, the complainant was asked to bring the untraced report by the Police Authorities and further denied that the complainant get RC of the vehicle in question from the competent transport authority. The opposite party No.1 has never obtained obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers or blank printed Forms without disclosing the contents to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that the RC of the vehicle can be got issued by enclosing FIR of the theft of the vehicle. The complainant has failed to comply with the requirements for processing the claim. The complainant has refused to get the R.C. of the said vehicle from the concerned authorities and has also failed to comply the requirements for processing of the claim, as such, he is not entitled for any interest or compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complainant has sought the finance facility from the opposite party No.2 and it has sanctioned the loan of Rs.3,13,500/- vide loan agreement No.5000541548 dated 24.04.2010. This loan was to be paid in 60 monthly installments as stipulated in the schedule and an amount of Rs.3,53,926/- was due and outstanding as on 19.01.2011. 9. The vehicle of the complainant had been stolen just within a week from the date of its purchase. The vehicle has been purchased on 24.04.2010 and it has been stolen on 01.05.2010 and an FIR was got lodged on 08.05.2010. He lodged the claim with the opposite party No.1 after getting the untraced report from the competent authority on 02.11.2010. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to submit the R.C. of the vehicle whereas it has been specifically alleged by the complainant that his car was stolen within 15 days from the date of purchase of the said vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party No.1 vide Insurance policy No.25041031106120001779 Ex.C-3 valid from 24.04.2010 to 23.04.2011 after paying the premium of Rs.10,804/-. An FIR was lodged on 08.05.2010 with Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda vide FIR No.329. The untraced report has been issued to the complainant by the Court of Sh.A.S.Virk, CJM, Bathinda on 02.11.2010. The vehicle is hypothecated with the opposite party No2. The untraced report was again issued on 09.09.2011. The opposite parties have keep on asking the documents from the complainant. It has asked to produce the documents on 10.08.2010 vide Ex.C-9 i.e. the R.C. of the vehicle and the loan account number alongwith account statement. 10. The Insurance Company has not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has not produced the R.C. of the vehicle. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ILA Gupta & Ors., 1(2007) CPJ 274 (NC), wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance – Hefty premium charged to insure Mercedez car – Repudiation on flimsy grounds – Plea, vehicle did not have permanent registration number – Not acceptable – Non-registration of vehicle did not lead to accident – If O.P. were so strict about said conditions they should have cancelled policy within reasonable time after bringing it to knowledge of complainant – Same not been done – Repudiation unjustified – Insurer liable.” Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in case titled Rajendra Prasad Tiwary Vs. New India Assurance Co. & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 391, wherein it has been held that :- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Insurance – Vehicle robbed – Non submission of relevant documents viz., registration certificate and driving license – Repudiation of claim – Justifiability – Registration of vehicle mandatory – If same not made within prescribed time, even then registration can be obtained by paying late fee of Rs.100/- - No terms and conditions to effect repudiation, in case vehicle not registered – Non-registration, no ground of repudiating just claim – Repudiation unjustified.” 11. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that non production of the R.C. of the vehicle is no ground for delay in making of the payment of the theft vehicle. The case of theft is to be treated as total loss. The complainant is entitled to get the IDV of the vehicle i.e. to the tune of Rs.3,97,100/- vide cover note No. 2504103110612 0001779. The vehicle is hypothecated with the opposite party No.2. The complainant has paid only 2 installments. The remaining loan amount is outstanding towards the complainant. Hence, the first right of the claimed amount is of the financier i.e. the opposite party No.2. 12. Therefore, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the IDV of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.3,97,100/- to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 after deducting the loan amount, will pay the remaining amount to the complainant and at the same time, the complainant will transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in the name of the opposite party No.1. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 08.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
