BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:200 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 10.04.2013.
Date of Decision:15.03.2017
Sanjay Kaushik aged 41 years son of Shri Om Dutt, resident of Kaunt Road, Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Jhhankar Road, Bhiwani.
- The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Sirsa.
- The Branch Manager, Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Hisar.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Sh. M.C. Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.
Ops no. 1 & 2 exparte.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a bolero bearing registration No. HR16H-7309 chasis No. MA1PS2GAK82F90671 engine No. GA94F49319 on 13.06.2009 on finance basis with OP no. 2, from Garg Motors, Sirsa, for a sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- out of which Rs. 2,20,000/- were deposited as earnest money and it was got financed from the Branch Manager, Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Hisar, OP no. 2. It is alleged that the said vehicle was met with an accident and lodged an FIR No. 74 dated 16.01.2010 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC in Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. It is alleged that the said company had assessed the loss of the said bolero as 100 per cent damaged and, therefore, the same could not be repaired. It is alleged that the complainant had made several requests and demands to the Ops no. 1 & 2 to pay the insured amount of the said vehicle but they went on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer harassment and depression etc. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Ops no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.07.2013.
3. On appearance, the OP no. 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the value of the vehicle was Rs. 5,85,000/- out of which the answering respondent had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- It is submitted that the complainant had made the payment of Rs. 1,32,750/- towards the installments but failed to make the same in monthly installments regularly. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-18 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 3 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle make bolero on 13.06.2009 and which was financed by OP no. 3 and was fully insured with OP no. 1. He further submitted that on 16.02.2010 the said vehicle met with an accident and was badly damaged and an FIR No. 74 dated 16.02.2010 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was registered with concerned police station. After the accident the said completely damaged vehicle parked in the premises of Mahendra & Mahendra Supreme Automobiles, Hisar, who is the financer of the vehicle. He further submitted that as the vehicle was completely damaged and it was fully insured with OP no. 1, so the complainant is not liable to pay the loan amount to the finance company/OP no. 3. The Ops no. 1 & 2 made several request to pay the insured amount of the vehicle but they have not paid the insured amount. He has prayed that the Ops no. 1 & 2 kindly be directed to pay the insured amount to OP no. 3 the financer of the vehicle.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant did not make the payment of installments of loan amount regularly and he is chronic defaulter. He further submitted that no intimation of the alleged accident was ever given by the complainant to the OP no. 3. He further submitted that as the complainant did not make the payment of loan installments regularly and as such in terms of loan agreement an arbitrator was appointed. The said arbitrator pass the arbitral award dated 04.02.2012. Despite the said award the complainant failed to make the payment of the execution of the said award is pending before the Learned Court, Bhiwani and which was fixed for 27.09.2014. He further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
9. In the context of the pleadings of parties and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. As per the contention of the complainant after the accident on 16.02.2010 he had parked the damaged vehicle in the premises of Mahendra and Mahendra Supreme Automobiles, Hisar, who is not party to this complaint and the said Mahendra and Mahendra Supreme Automobiles, Hisar assessed the loss of the vehicle as 100 per cent and the vehicle could not be repaired. Nowhere the complainant has alleged that he had given the intimation to the Ops no. 1 to 3 regarding the alleged accident, and he lodged the claim alongwith necessary documents to Ops no. 1 & 2 for the payment of the insured amount. No letter/correspondence with Ops no. 1 & 2, has been produced by the complainant on the file to prove that he had ever lodged any claim with the Ops no. 1 & 2. According to the complainant the vehicle met with accident on 16.02.2010 and the present complaint has been filed after more than 3 years on 10.04.2013. In the present complaint the complainant has prayed for a direction to Ops no. 1 & 2 for the payment of the insured amount to OP no. 3 after when the OP no. 3 the financer of the vehicle initiated the proceedings for the recovery of the amount of loan from the complainant. The complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that he has any cause of action against the Ops. On the basis of the material on the file we have come to this conclusion that the complainant did not lodge any claim with Ops no. 1 & 2 alongwith necessary documents. Hence the complainant has no cause of action against the Ops no. 1 & 2. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 15.03.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member.
