DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 125 of 11-05-2017

Decided on : 20-03-2018

Sukhneet Singh aged about 30 years S/o Sh. Sukhwinder Singh R/o Village Valoor, Tehsil & District Ferozepur. …...Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office : Bank Street, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager

2. Indusind Bank Limited, Baba Farid Market, Faridkot through its Branch Manager

3. .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Rajan Sharma, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, for OP No. 1

Sh. K K Vinocha, Advocate, for OP No. 2.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sukhneet Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the year 2015, he purchased one Balero ZLX vehicle, Model 2015 for a sum of Rs.8,71,000/- for his personal use, after availing loan from opposite party No. 2. The vehicle was allotted permanent registration bearing No. PB-05-AC-4563. The complainant got the vehicle insured from opposite party No.1 vide Insurance Policy No.233200/31/2016/1100 effective from 26-06-2015 to 25-06-2016 after paying requisite premium.

3. It is alleged that on 27-11-20l5, at about 2.30 p.m. father of the complainant went to Tainka Wali Basti, Ferozepur Cantt to take his medicine on the said Balero vehicle after properly parking the same. When father of the complainant came back, after taking medicine, he found that vehicle was not there. He tried his best to search the vehicle here and there, but could not succeed. Ultimately, complainant and his father gave intimation regarding theft of vehicle to the Insurance Company( opposite party No.1) and bank i.e. opposite party No. 2 telephonically as well as in writing. He also got registered FIR in PS Cantt Ferozepur vide No.135 dated 27-11-2015 under Section 379 IPC. Thereafter, the police officials tried their best to trace out vehicle but could not succeed. The opposite party No.1 deputed its surveyor to investigate the claim, who directed complainant to submit some documents for settlement of his claim. Accordingly, complainant submitted all the required documents i.e. original Insurance Policy, copy of Registration Certificate, Driving Licence, Bank account details and other documents as required by surveyor and opposite party No.1. They also got signatures of the complainant on some blank printed forms and blank forms. The complainant was assured that his claim shall be settled shortly and payment of the same will be made directly to the bank to the extent of remaining loan amount and balance shall be paid to the complainant. No claim has been settled and paid to the complainant so far. The opposite party No. 2 also wrote letter to opposite party No. 1 requesting to settle lawful claim of the complainant but to no effect. Finally opposite party No.1 asked to wait for receipt of Untraceable Report to be issued by Police. Accordingly, complainant approached the police officials and requested them to issue Untraceable report because of non-tracing of the said vehicle. Ultimately, the police issued Untraceable Report. Thereafter, complainant submitted Untraceable Report and some other documents as demanded by opposite party No. 1. Accordingly, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that his lawful claim shall be settled and paid to the complainant shortly but claim of the complainant has not been settled and paid to him so far. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties, but to no response.

4. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 has been pressurizing the complainant to deposit installments of the loan for which he is neither responsible to pay nor the opposite party No.2 has any right to claim the same from him. The opposite party No.1 is liable to settle the claim and to make payment of the balance loan amount from the claim amount.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that due to this, the complainant is suffering mental tension, agony and harassment etc., For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. The complainant has also prayed for direction to the opposite parties to pay claim amount of Rs. 8,71,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In separate written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum as well as the opposite party. The complainant has concealed the fact that false FIR was lodged regarding theft of the vehicle as the vehicle was got serviced twice after the alleged theft i.e. on 17-07-2016 and on 28-03-2016 by the complainant himself. The retail Invoice has been issued in the name of complainant by the service centre M/s Jai Kumar Pvt. Limited, 195, Opposite Partappur police station Meerut. The complainant was sent letter dated 26-05-2017 calling upon him to explain the position but no reply was received from him. There is delay of 3 days in intimation to the opposite party in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The key submitted was also totally fresh and unused. The circumstances of the case make the claim totally suspicious and non genuine. The opposite party is representing a public institution which is custodian of public funds. The opposite party is supposed to take proper care before making any payment. That the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party. He has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.

7. On merits, purchase of vehicle by complainant, its registration and insurance are not denied but are stated to be matter of record. The version of complainant regarding theft of vehicle is denied. It is denied that immediate intimation was given to the opposite party. It is further mentioned that intimation was given late by 3 days. It is mentioned that vehicle was got serviced twice after alleged loss. It is admitted that opposite party deputed investigator who conducted investigation and submitted investigation report dated 22-07-2016 and reinvestigation report dated 20-03-2017 whereby it became clear that the vehicle was got serviced twice after the date of alleged loss by the complainant as the retail invoice have been issued in the name of complainant himself. Therefore, no claim is payable. The complainant did not give any explanation to the letter dated 26-05-2017 and rather filed the complaint. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. In its written reply, the opposite party No. 2 also raised legal objections that vehicle in question is hypothecated with it. It is further mentioned that complainant as borrower and one Rajinder Pal Singh as co-borrower; have availed loan/financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 6,30,000/- on 08-7-2015. They agreed to repay the same along-with interest/finance charges to the tune of Rs. 2,23,335/- i.e. totaling to Rs, 8,53,335/- in 59 monthly installments as detailed in Schedule of the Agreement & other charges as detailed in Agreement itself containing all terms and conditions.

9. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 2 prayed that matter may please be decided in accordance with law and complaint against it be dismissed with costs. It is, further prayed that Insurance claim may be ordered to be paid to opposite party for setting-off the same against defaulted and future payable sum because vehicle in question, which is prime-security having been stolen.

10. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 7-9-2017 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of FIR No. 135 dated 27-11-2015 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letters (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of provisional R.C. (Ex. C-5), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of report dated 17-8-2016 (Ex. C-7)

11. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 20-11-2017 of Roop Lal Baleem (Ex. OP-1/1), affidavit dated 20-11-2017 of Amit Kumar Sharma, affidavit dated 14-11-2017 of Rajiv Aaggarwal (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of letters (Ex. OP-1/4 & Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of investigation report (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of re-investigation report (Ex, OP-1/8), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/9), photocopy of policy (Ex. OP-1/10), photocopy of claim intimation (Ex. OP-1/11), photocopy of claim form (Ex. OP-1/12), photocopy of investigation report (Ex. OP-1/13), photocopy of insurance policy (Ex. OP-1/14), photocopy of letter dated 26-5-2017 (Ex. OP-1/15) and photocopy of retail Invoice (Ex. OP-1/16).

12. The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 29-6-2017 of Robin Arora (Ex. OP-2/1), photocopy of loan agreement (Ex. OP-2/2), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-2/3), photocopy of award (Ex. OP-2/4) and closed the evidence.

13. The complainant and opposite party No. 1 have also submitted written arguments.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of complainant and opposite party No. 1.

15. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that material facts are not in dispute. It is admitted that complainant got his vehicle insured with opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 26-06-2015 to 25-06-2016. The complainant has pleaded that his vehicle was stolen on 27-11-2015. Copy of FIR (Ex. C-2) also proves this fact. Intimation was given to opposite party No. 1 immediately after loss. Of course opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that intimation was given by 3 days delay but it is still admitted that complainant intimated opposite party No. 1. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 was required to settle the claim within reasonable time i.e. at the most within six months. The opposite party No. 1 has not taken any action which compelled the complainant to file this complaint on 11-5-2017. The delay in settlement of claim, amounts to deficiency in service.

16. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite party has pleaded that complainant got serviced his vehicle from Merut on 17-7-2016 and 28-3-2016 but it is highly improbable and unbelievable. The vehicle was stolen on 27-11-2015. The complainant has already got registered FIR. Of course the vehicle was stolen. If it was recovered, complainant was having no reason to lodge the claim. Moreover, opposite party No. 1 has not intimated this fact to the police and instead of reporting this fact to the police, has issued letter dated 25-5-2017 (Ex. OP-1/15), which is after filing of complaint. It is only to further delay the claim. Therefore, the complaint be accepted.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has submitted that complaint is pre-mature. The complainant has already been issued letter dated 26-5-2017 (Ex. OP-1/15) whereby he has been intimated that as per investigation and service record, the vehicle was serviced at M/s. Jai Kumar Pvt. Ltd., Meerut. The complainant was asked to submit his comments regarding service of vehicle. Instead of furnishing comments, the complainant has filed this complaint. As such, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

18. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

19. The admitted facts are that complainant being owner of vehicle in question got it insured from opposite party No. 1 w.e.f. 26-5-2015 to 25-6-2016. As per complainant, vehicle was stolen on 27-11-2015. It is also not disputed that intimation regarding this fact was given to the opposite parties. Although as per opposite party No. 1 there was delay of 3 days in this intimation. The fact remains that opposite party No. 1 was intimated regarding theft of vehicle. The opposite party No. 1 appointed Investigator Amit Kumar Sharma. The opposite party No. 1 has produced on record report of the Investigator as Ex. OP-1/13. It is dated 22-7-2016. Vide this report Investigator has concluded that case of theft of vehicle is made out . The claim is genuine for its settlement. The claim may be settled after completion of all the legal formalities. Of course it was further mentioned that before settlement of claim, cancellation of FIR must be obtained and un-traceability report of police must be duly accepted by Judicial Magistrate of the concerned court before settlement of claim.

20. The complainant has pleaded that he obtained cancellation report and submitted the same before opposite party No. 1 but copy of cancellation report as claimed by complainant has not been produced on record.

21. The opposite party No. 1 has placed on record another report of the same Investigator as Ex. OP-1/8. It is dated 20-3-2017. He examined the Company's Service Record Book of the vehicle. He has revealed in his report that vehicle in question was serviced by Jai Kumar Arun Kumar Pvt. Ltd., Meerut and it is running in the area of U.P. The Investigator has also placed on record copy of Service Record Book. On the basis of this Service Record Book, the complainant was issued letter dated 26-5-2017 (Ex. OP-1/15).

    The opposite party No. 1 has also taken considerable time for concluding the investigation. It amounts to deficiency in service.

22. The opposite party No. 1 has also placed on record copy of letter dated 26-5-2017 to prove that complainant was asked to send his comments regarding service of vehicle at Meerut on cash bill issued by dealer. This letter is after filing of complaint. Admittedly, the complainant has not filed reply to this letter. In these circumstances, although the opposite party No. 1 is deficient in settling the matter, but the matter is still pending for want of comments to the letter dated 26-5-2017.

23. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days after receipt of comments from the complainant regarding letter dated 26-5-2017.

24. The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

25. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

26. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order

     

     

     

    personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    20-03-2018

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member