Iqbal Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Jul 2017 against Rampa Motors in the Nawanshahr Consumer Court. The case no is CC/17/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Jul 2017.
Punjab
Nawanshahr
CC/17/2017
Iqbal Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Rampa Motors - Opp.Party(s)
Rajdeep Jagotra
24 Jul 2017
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.
Consumer Complaint No : 17/2017
Date of Institution : 10.04.2017
Date of Decision : 24.07.2017
Iqbal Singh s/o late Balwinder Singh, Mohalla Pahar Singh Village Rahon, Tehsil and District SBS Nagar.
….Complainant
Versus
Rampa Motors, Authorized Bajaj Auto Dealer, Garshankar Road, Nawanshahr through its Manager/Proprietor.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerdwada, Pune- 411006 (Maharastra) through its MD.
Shree Ram City Union Finance Limited, 12-2-826/A/3/14, Ist Floor, Beside BSH ATM Mehdipatnam Cross Road, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad 500028.
Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
For Complainant : Ms. Rajdeep Jagotra, Advocate counsel for
Complainant.
For OP no.1 : Sh. Vicky Sahota, Service Manager,
Representative
For OP no.2&3 : Already Ex-parte
ORDER
PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by complainant, wherein it is alleged that he purchased motorcycle Make Bajaj Model Pulsar on 27.06.2015 from OP no.1, vide bill no. 151 dated 27.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.72,340/-, which was registered on the same day with registration no. PB32T-6633 and also got insurance policy from OP no.2 through OP no.1 and also paid the premium of Rs.1984/- of the said insurance.
That the Motorcycle was financed by OP no.3 with an amount of Rs.49,999/- plus file charges Rs.7241/- and complainant made down payment of Rs.25,000/- to OP no.1 . Rest of the amount was paid by OP no.3 from which complainant would to be pay though E.M.I Rs.4770/- to OP no.3. The complainant has paid 4 installments of Rs.19080/-. OP no.3 got 10 blank cheques for the security of the finance of the motorcycle in question. On 01.01.2016, the motorcycle in question was theft at Nawanshahr and after three days search, complainant made complaint to the City Police Station on 04.01.2016, which was registered in DDR Register on 05.01.2016. The complainant intimated OP no.1 on 10.01.2016 about the said incident because they made the insurance of the motorcycle themselves and both parties are co-related branches of Bajaj Group and they told to complainant that the claim will be filed after getting the FIR and untrace report. Then, the complainant approached to the police station for getting the FIR and untrace report. The said police officials told him that the FIR will be launch after verification and untrace report will be issued after approximate three months of the incident.
That on 20.01.2016, FIR was registered by the concerned police station and copy provided to the complainant and then complainant approached to OP no.1 because the insurance was made through him. The Manager of OP no.1 told him that the untrace report will be required for the claim. On 08.03.2016, the police official issued to complainant an untrace report regarding the theft of the motorcycle in question and complainant filed full claim file on 09.03.2016 with all documents to OP no.2 through OP no.1. After filing this claim, the complainant received reply from OP no.2 on 14.04.2016 regarding claim in which OP no.2 revealed that the claim of the motorcycle has filed too late and FIR is also registered late and asked him to explain the cause of the delay in the FIR. They made an enquiry and find the lost motorcycle was true. In the reference letter dated 14.04.2016 and 22.04.2016 complainant replied the same and explained the facts of the delay in the FIR and intimation. After this OP no.2 has sent his representative namely Jagir Singh, who works at OP no.2/Branch Batala District Gurdaspur for investigation of the motorcycle in question. Then after this, on 18.05.2016 complainant received a letter from OP no.2, in which OP no.2 intimate to complainant that the claim of the motorcycle in question stands repudiated and they said the claim cannot be paid while complainant paid full premium of the motorcycle in question. OP no.3, who is financer of the motorcycle in question asking complainant to pay the amount but complainant is not able to pay the amount because he is a poor man and the motorcycle was insured by OPno.2 and the amount must be pay by OPno.2 to OP no.3 also. Due to this kind of act of OPs violated the terms and conditions of sale service and violated the rules and regulations of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has suffered a great mentally and financial loss due to loss of motorcycle in question. It is requested to the Forum to direct OPs to pay to complainant full insurance amount of the motorcycle in question and further requested that the Forum to direct OP no.3 to recover the amount of the motorcycle from OP no.2 instead of complainant because the motorcycle was insured by OP no.2 and direct OP no.3 not to ask the complainant for money until the claim of the motorcycle could not be paid by OP no.2 and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainant may kindly accepted and OPs be directed to pay insurance of the motorcycle i.e. full amount of motorcycle in question to complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs no.2 and 3 did not bother to appear, hence, they were proceeded against exparte, whereas, OP no.1 appeared through his representative Sh. Vicky Sahota and filed reply. He categorically stated that complainant purchased the motorcycle from OP no.1/Agency and further submitted that the complainant approached to OP no.1 and told that his motorcycle was stolen and he want to file insurance claim and he approached on 07.03.2016 and accordingly he was asked to bring documents i.e. R.C, Driving Licence, Aadhar Card, Insurance Policy and copy of FIR and then he came along with all documents on 09.03.2016. On the basis of said documents, claim was launched on 09.03.2016 and thereafter role of OP no.1 is nothing because OP no.1 is only a agent and thereafter complainant can approach to OP no.2/Insurance Company for payment of the claim.
5. In order to prove the complaint, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
Similarly, counsel OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vicky Sahota, Service Manager Ex.OP-1/A and closed the evidence.
We have heard counsel for the complainant as well as representative of OP no.1 and also gone through the file alongwith documents very minutely.
After going through the entire facts as well as documents, we find that role of OP no.1 in this complaint is only as a agent of the insurance company and as such we find that OP no.1 is not indirectly or directly liable to pay any relief to the complainant and therefore complaint of the complainant against OP no.1 is not maintainable and same is dismissed. So far concern of complaint of the complainant against OP no.2/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company is concerned for that purpose. The complainant obviously has brought on the file copy of insurance policy Ex.C-3 and also produced his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, whereby reiterated the entire facts as detailed in the complaint and copy of invoice Ex.C-4. So from the documents Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, it is establish that the complainant has purchased the motorcycle from OP no.1 and got insured with Insurance Company/OP no.2 and further in order to establish, whether motorcycle was stolen or not. For that purpose, complainant has to bring on the file copy of FIR or DDR. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that DDR was recorded on 05.01.2016 and then FIR was lodged on 20.01.2016 but neither copy of DDR nor copy of FIR is brought on the file. So, there are only statement of the complainant is that his motorcycle was stolen by unknown persons but his own version is not corroborated with any documentary evidence, therefore, it is not acceptable and not proved that motorcycle of the complainant was stolen.
So far the case of the complainant on merits is related, for that purpose and facts of the complaint is very important to mention here that motorcycle of the complainant as alleged was stolen on 01.01.2016 and he alleged that he intimated to OP no.1 on 10.01.2016 though there is 10 days delay but in order to establish that he intimated to OP no.1 on 10.01.2016. No document is produced on the file and further alleged in para no.7 of the complaint that complainant filed full claim file on 09.03.2016 and same was forwarded to OP no.1 for further necessary action. So far there is delay of about two months, which is not explained by the complainant, rather, as per rule of the insurance policy, the intimation of theft is to be given immediately to the concerned insurance company, but in this case obviously complainant gave intimation after two months from the date of theft.
So, under these circumstances, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Furthermore in order to establish that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by OP no.2. The complainant miserably failed to bring on the file said letter, whereby claim of the complainant was repudiated. The complainant has brought on the file one letter Ex.C-1, whereby the complainant was asked by OP no.2 /Insurance Company to explain the delay, but no late has been brought on the file by the complainant, whereby he explained the delay. So, if delay is not explain properly, then the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim, being reason the intimation was given too much late from the date of incident.
Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument of the complainant, therefore, complaint is hereby dismissed.
Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated 24..07.2017
(Kanwaljeet Singh) (Karnail Singh)
Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.