BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 751 of 2010
Date of instt.21.09.2010
Date of decision: 19.02.2015
Sanjeev Kumar son of Shri Hari Kishan r/o Gali No.3, Anand Vihar Colony, Goghripur Fatak, Karnal.
………..Complainant.
Versus
1. Shree Ram Finance Co. through its Manager, at Namestey Chowk, Karnal.
2.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. through its Manager, SCO No.155, Mugal Canal, Karnal.
3.Reliance General Insurance Co.Latd.570, NAIGAUM, Cross Road, next to Royal Industrial Estate Vodall WestMumbai 400031..
……… Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma….Member.
Present Sh.Deepak Vohra Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gagan Sehgal Advocate for OP.1.
Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP no.2 &3
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the against the Ops on the allegations that the complainant purchased a vehicle LTV TATA 207 bearing registration No. HR 64 0891 model 2004 for Rs. three lacs in the year 2007 from Sita Ram son of Mani Ram and after some time got the said vehicle financed from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.80,000/ and the said financed amount was to be repaid in 25 equal installments of Rs.3656/ each. The complainant paid two installments till 23.8.2009 to OP no.1 and the said vehicle was got insured from the OP no.2 on 6.4.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/ w.e.f. 6.4.2009 to 5.4.2009 and unfortunately the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the March, 2009 and the matter was reported to the police and the FIR No. 99 dated 23.3.2010 was got registered u/s 379 IPC at P.S.Gharaunda. The complainant also reported the matter to the Ops and lodged his claim but the claim of the complainant has not been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on their part and has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the claim amount alongwith compensation for the harassment caused to him. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.
2. On notice the Ops appeared. The OP No.1 has filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint was barred for joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as the answering OP is not the necessary party in the present complaint. .
On merits the OP no.1 has admitted that the vehicle in question was financed by it for a sum of Rs.80,000/ and the said amount was to be repaid in 25 installments of Rs.3656/ each. It was contended that since beginning the complainant was not maintaining the financial discipline and was defaulter in repayment of the financed amount and a sum of Rs.51336/ excluding ODC charges are outstanding against him.
The OP No.2 and 3 have contended that that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy because the said vehicle was stolen on 13.3.2010 and the complainant gave intimation of loss to the answering OPs on 7.3.2011 and there was also delay in lodging the FIR for ten days and as such the claim has rightly been repudiated.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties , it emerges that complainant purchased a vehicle LTV TATA 207 bearing registration No. HR 64 0891 model 2004 for Rs. three lacs in the year 2007 from Sita Ram son of Mani Ram and after some time got the said vehicle financed from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.80,000/ and the said financed amount was to be repaid in 25 equal installments of Rs.3656/ each. The complainant paid two installments till 23.8.2009 to OP no.1 and the said vehicle was got insured from the OP no.2 on 6.4.2009 for a sum of Rs.2, 25,000/ w.e.f. 6.4.2009 to 5.4.2010 vide insurance policy Ex.C2 the said vehicle was stolen by some unknown person in the March, 2009 and the matter was reported to the police and the FIR No. 99 dated 23.3.2010 Ex.C5 was got registered u/s 379 IPC at P.S. Gharaunda. The Learned Illaqa Magistrate, Karnal has also issued the untraced report Ex.C6. The complainant also reported the matter to the Ops and lodged his claim but the claim of the complainant has not been paid.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the delay if any in reporting the matter to the Ops and in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the present case and the claim has wrongly been repudiated by the Ops. He has placed reliance on the law laid down in cases New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Mukesh Sehgal 2009 1 CPC page 548, OIC Versus Parvesh Chander Chadha 2009 CPC page 55 and Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Sri Avvn Ganesh 2012 CPC Page 681.
5. However, it was argued on behalf of the Ops no.2 and 3 that claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated as the intimation was given after 359 days and as such there was delay in giving intimation. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Satpal Versus United India InsuranceCo.Ltd.and Ors. 2013 3 CPC page 518 and Surender Vs. NIC 2013 2 CPC page 137. Reliance has also been placed on the law laid down in case Ramesh Chandra Meghwanshi Vs. The OIC Ltd. Revision petition No.793 of 2014 order dated 6.2.2015.
6. . Therefore, after going through the circumstances of the case and the evidence on the file that the vehicle bearing No. HR 64 0891 was insured with the OP vide insurance policy Ex.C2 and in March, 2010 the said vehicle was stolen and the matter was reported to the police and the FIR Ex.C5 was registered. Learned Illaqa Magistrate issued the untraced report Ex.C6 and the claim was lodged with the Ops but the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter Ex.O2 . No doubt as per the contents of the FIR Ex.C5 the vehicle was stolen on 12.3.2010 and the FIR Ex.C5 was registered on 23.3.2010 and there was delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and there was delay of 359 days in giving intimation to the Ops which has deprived the Ops to check and investigate the circumstances of the alleged theft. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in the authorities relied upon by the Ops, the claim has been repudiated. However, the Hon,ble Apex Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs.OIC Civil Appeal no.2703 of 2010 has held that in such like cases the claim can be granted on non standard basis and has laid down the guide lines for granting compensation on non standard basis . Hon,ble National Commission has also taken the same view in case OIC Ltd. Versus Parvesh Chaander Chadha 2009 1 CPC Page 55. In view of the guide lines laid down in Amalendu Shaoo,s case Supra and the Hon,ble National Commission in OIC Ltd.,s case Supra we deem it proper to grant compensation on the basis of non standard basis to the extent of 75% of the admissible claim.
7. Therefore, in view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of 75% of the as assessed by the surveyor vide report dated 1.10.2010, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.01.2011 till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/ as compensation for the harassment caused to him and a sum of Rs.2200/ towards legal fee and the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present Sh.Deepak Vohra Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gagan Sehgal Advocate for OP.1.
Sh.Rohit Gupta Advocate for the OP no.2.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015. (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
