DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Hardev Singh s/o Sh. Sarwan Singh, R/o #111, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]        Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No. 10-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

[2]    Citi Finance Limited, SCO No. 407-408, Sector 35-C (Ground Floor), Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      None for the Complainant.

Sh. D.C. Kumar, Adv. for  OP-1

Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. for OP-2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.             Factually speaking, the Complainant was the owner of a Motorcycle (Bajaj Platina), bearing Regn. No. CH-04-B-2642, which was insured with the OPs from 15/02/2008 to 14/02/2009. The said vehicle was stolen from Badheri Market i.e. within the area of Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh on 24/08/2008. The Complainant approached the police officials for registration of F.I.R., which was registered on 09/09/2008 [Annex.C-2]. After registration of the F.I.R., the Complainant approached OP No.1 for claiming the insurance for theft of the aforesaid vehicle. OP No.1 issued a letter dated 06/04/2009, requesting him to submit the untraced report. The untraced report was received in December, 2009, and submitted to OP No.1. But, OP No.1 has yet not settled the claim. 

                Meanwhile, OP No.2 has been pressurizing the Complainant to deposit the installments of loan taken for the Motorcycle. The Complainant has informed OP No.2 that the vehicle has been stolen. The Complainant has also received intimation from OP No.1 to transfer the R.C. in their name, besides submitting NCRB report and duly signed discharge voucher. The Complainant has alleged that delay in passing the claim by OP No.1 is causing him continuous harassment and mental torture. He has, thus, prayed that OPs be directed to release the claim of the insured vehicle, and also pay compensation and costs of litigation.

2.              After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

3.              OP No.1 in reply has said that the Complainant is only trying to mislead the Forum. His claim has already been approved by them and the amount has not been released due to non-submission of RC of the vehicle duly transferred in the name of OP No.1 and submission of NCRB report along with discharge voucher. As the Complainant has not discharged his obligation, the claim had been filed as no claim, after issuing final notice on 06/01/2010 sent by registered post.

                On merits, OP No.1 has admitted intimation of theft of Motorcycle from the Complainant on 23/09/2008. They have reiterated the fact that though the claim has been approved by the competent authority for Rs.32,800/-, the Complainant has not completed the formalities, despite requests and hence, the claim file has been filed. Thus, denying the allegations of the Complainant about their inefficiency and negligence, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.              OP No.2 in reply has submitted that the Complainant had availed a two wheeler loan of Rs.30,000/- from them. The said loan was to be paid in 36 monthly installments of Rs.1150/- each. As on 16/02/2011, an amount of Rs.35,830.88/- is still outstanding, which is payable along with interest.  They have also requested that if the claim is allowed by OP No.1, they have the first right to be paid the amount as recovery of its outstanding dues. OP No.2 has, also prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

5.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.              As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 18.11.2011, the arguments of the counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 18.11.2011.

7.              We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have perused the record.

8.              It is evident from the documents placed on record that intimation regarding the theft of the vehicle was given by the Complainant to OP No.1, who has after processing the case, agreed to pay the claim. However, the Complainant has not been able to provide the relevant necessary documents to OP No.1 for completing the procedure for payment to him. The amount has, thus, remained unpaid. OP No.1 has, now, closed the claim file on 06.01.2010.  It is also evident, that to fulfill the requirements of OP No.1, the Complainant needs ‘No Objection Certificate’ from OP No.2, which can only be had, after the payment is made to them of the outstanding against the loan amount.

9.              In the given circumstances, we allow the present complaint and direct OPs to settle the claim of the complainant. OP No.1 is directed to release the amount in the name of OP No.2 as it is necessary for the complainant to take ‘No Objection Certificate’ from OP No.2 so as to complete his documentation as required by OP No.1. We further direct OP No.2 to give “No Objection Certificate” to the complainant within 15 days of the receipt of the amount from OP No.1. All the remaining outstanding, if any, shall be paid by the Complainant. The complainant is also bound to complete all documentation as required by OP No.1 after receiving the “No Objection Certificate” from OP No2 within 30 days of the receipt of “No Objection Certificate” from OP No.2.

10.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th November 2011.                                                                   

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER