Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of vehicle (Mahindra Bolero) bearing Registration No. OR-16D-0830 has purchased the insurance policy from the OP. covering the period from 22.3.2011 to 21.3.2012. It is also case of the complainant that he has purchased the Bolero on being financed by OP No.2. It is alleged inter alia that during currency of the policy the vehicle was stolen away on 20.4.2011 by some culprits. Thereafter, complainant allegedly informed to local police but due to inaction of the police, he filed the complaint case before the learned SDJM, Sundargarh. Thereafter, he also informed the OP No.1 who repudiated the claim on the ground that there is delay in lodging FIR and the complainant has not taken responsibility and care to the security of this vehicle. Therefore, he filed the complaint case.
4. OP No.1 filed written version stating that they have received the claim application but due to none co-operation of the complainant to submit the documents they have repudiated the claim. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.
5. OP No.2 filed written version stating that the allegations are against OP No.1 and they have nothing to prove in this case. According to them, they have no any deficiency in service on their part.
6. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The OP No.1 is liable to pay the insurance claim amount as per the value of the policy bond certificate, subject to deduction of depreciation and salves thereof. As there is no copy of document as to certificate of insurance policy in relation to the case has been filed by the complainant, no specific amount for payment is order, but taking the plea of the OP No.1 in their written version as to the fact of admission, directed insurance company OP No.1 to payment of the award of insurance claim as per the amount of IDV in certificate policy. Further we directed the financer OP No.2 not to charge any interest against delay payment even if found there was no default in this case. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees there thousand) to the complainant. The OP 1 is directed to repayment of the aforesaid decreed amount within 30(thirty) days of receipt of this order failing which the same amount will carry 09% penal interest.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that OP No.1 has not filed appeal against the order passed against it. But OP No.2 filed appeal challenging the direction of the learned District Forum. Learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2 submitted that the learned District Forum has not considered the case with reference to their written version while according to him there is no finding of the learned District Forum that the complainant was at fault in payment of EMI. In absence of any finding as such by making the complainant for payment of any delay payment charges or interest on the delay payment he submitted to set aside the impugned order passed against it.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the vehicle of the complainant has been stolen away and he made claim before OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has filed a complaint case alleging the occurrence which is pending before the learned SDJM, Sundargarh. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has pad the EMI up to 5.6.2014. The order of the learned District Forum does not show that OP No.2 has charged any late payment of EMI or delay payment charges. When there is no finding of the learned District Forum as to the claim of OP No.2, the question of direction to OP No.2 not to charge any interest against the delay payment is an anticipation and the judicial propriety demands that the final order is to be passed only on the finding of the concerned authority. No relief can be granted unless proved the fact by evidence led by the parties. In the instant case there is no finding or evidence or allegations about the final payment, the question of passing order against OP No.2 as appearing above is unnecessary and liable to be set aside. Therefore, the direction to OP No.2 is hereby set aside.
10. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
