DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

(CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC No. 265/2017

No. DF/ Central/                                Date 

Shri Sanjay Parsad

S/o Sh.Chinta Lal

Aged about 38 Yrs.

R/o H. No. 110, NEAR Kali Mata Mandir,

Bhagat Singh Nagar, Gali No. 11

R Block , Karala, Delhi - 110081

                                                                                        ......COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Through its Director,

Service Centre – 2, 4E/14, Jhandewalan Extn.,

Ground Floor, Azad Bhawan, Delhi – 110055

                                                                                      …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum:    Ms. Rekha Rani, President

        Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

         Shri R.C. Meena, (Member)

 ORDER                

Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member  

     Instant complaint has been filed by the Shri Sanjay Prasad  (hereinafter referred to as complainant) U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) alleging therein that Complainant purchased an E-rickshaw vide No. DL-1ERA-7079 and took insurance policy no. 272302/31/2017/1335 vide claim no. 270011/31/2017/038023 which was commencing from 23.08.2016 and paid a premium of Rs. 5203/-.  It is further 

alleged that on 29/12/2016 the E-rickshaw of complainant was got stolen and an 

FIR in this regard was lodged.  As the vehicle could not found un-trace report 

was filed which was accepted by Shri  Devender Nain, Ld. ACMM, Rohini, Delhi.  After the untrace report order complainant approached OP for the claim and also fulfilled all the requirements.  Despite repeated requests OP did not pass the claim of the complainant. Complainant issued legal notice dated 17.10.17 

but no reply was received.  Pleading deficiency in service complainant prayed for OP be directed to pass the claim of  Rs. 89,775/- along with interest 

@ 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of its realization and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost. 

    In reply to the notice OP stated that complaint is not maintainable as the financier M/s. Uphar Finance Ltd. has not been made a party as the complainant is not the exclusive owner of the vehicle.  The complainant had not filed any NOC from the Financier above mentioned in support of clearance of the loan amount and in the absence of NOC the complainant has no right to draw the financial benefit exclusively.  It is further stated that as per the contact of Insurance the complainant was legally duty bound to give immediate notice upon the occurrence of any accident or loss or damage which the complainant has failed to do.  The OP immediately appointed an investigator to investigate the loss who visited the complainant’s place and requested the complainant for supplying a copy of FIR, RC, Driving Licence, Permit, Claim form, both keys 

of the vehicle and other claim papers as required for settlement of his claim.  The deputed surveyor opined that the complainant has failed to supply both the keys of the vehicle and has stated in writing that the second key is with the Financier but the Financier in writing refused about the second key in his possession.

     It is further stated that the claim of the complainant was closed as no claim on 30.09.2017 after giving proper notice to him on 23.09.2017, as the complainant failed to supply/deposit second key of the stolen vehicle to the respondent.  

     In rejoinder complainant reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and sated that complainant sent the second key of the vehicle through courier to the surveyor on 18/01/2017.

     Affidavit of evidence have been filed by both the parties.  

     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.    

     Counsel for complainant argued that complainant approached the OP for his claim and fulfilled all the requirements after untraced report filed by the police accepted by the Learned ACMM Rohini Delhi.    Counsel for OP argued that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant neither impleaded the Financier of the E-rickshaw M/s. Uphar Finance Ltd., nor filed any NOC issued by the Financier or proof of payment of the EMI’s to the Financier and that complainant has not intimated the theft of  E-rickshaw to OP immediately after the occurrence and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.    

    On filing the claim by the complainant investigator Mr. Rajesh Sharma asked the complainant to submit the information given to the RTO regarding 

theft of the E-rickshaw and RC, information given to the Financier and details of the payment of installments and untrace report issued by the Police / Court to the complainant to the surveyor along with letter.   The complainant submitted all these documents to the OP. The relevant portion of the letter sent by the Financier to OP is as under : 

    “We inform you we have not repossessed above mentioned theft vehicle key Not Received To Showroom.

    Kindly issue the claim cheque in favour of “UPHAR FINVEST LTD.” we are enclosing customer A/C statement.”

As the vehicle is hypothecated with the Financier the Financier is a necessary party and in the absence of any NOC given by Financier the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.  

     In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the E-rickshaw is hypothecated with Uphaar Finevest Ltd and complainant has failed to place on record any NOC from it, hence the complaint is dismissed.   Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 14th day of August 2019.