| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.137 of 16-05-2017 Decided on 26-04-2018 Mohammad Wasim aged about 41 years S/o Mohammad Furkan R/o Street No.7, House No.17976, Chandsar Basti, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (Raj.), through its Managing Director/Chairman. 2.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, SCO 128-129, Rose Garden Complex, GT Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager. .......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.M.K Dhamija, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate. For opposite party No.2: Sh.Vikas Singla, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Mohammad Wasim (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is owner of i-20 car bearing registration No.PB-03Z-3369, model 2012. He got it insured with opposite parties vide policy bearing No.10003/31/16/655366 on payment of requisite premium of Rs.16,940/-. The vehicle was insured for all purposes including accident, theft and all types of other risks. The insurance policy was valid w.e.f. 26.3.2016 to 25.3.2017. It is alleged that on 27.11.2016, the complainant parked his car at night in front of his house as a routine and it was duly locked. He woke up on 28.11.2016 in the morning and found that the car was not at its place and it was stolen by some person. He tried his level best to trace the car, but it could not be traced. He gave its due information to the police of P.S. Civil Lines, Bathinda. F.I.R No.0014 dated 11.2.2017 was lodged with the police. He informed opposite party No.2 about the theft of the car and lodged the insurance claim with opposite parties at Bathinda regarding the vehicle vide claim No.10000/31/17/C/056232. He furnished all the requisite formalities. It is further alleged that the complainant requested opposite parties to honour his claim, but they failed to honour his claim although a period of more than three months has already been elapsed. He also got issued the legal notice to opposite party No.1 on 6.3.2017 through his counsel calling upon it to honour his insurance claim within 15 days, but it did not give any reply to this notice. Ultimately, two days back, OP's flatly refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. It is also alleged that due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial loss. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for these sufferings in addition to insurance claim to the tune of Rs.5,13,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing their separate written version. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it is insurance company limited, having its corporate office at E-8, EPIP, Tonk Rd, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and U/s 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938. Thereafter opposite party No.1 has raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause-of-action to file complaint. His claim does not fall within the insurance granted by opposite party No.1. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this case. The parties have to lead their evidence by examining the witnesses. The witnesses are to be cross-examined by the other party. Procedure under 'Act' is summary in nature. The complainant, if so advised, may file the civil suit. He is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts, conduct, omissions and acquiescence. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature. It has been filed in order to cause undue harassment to opposite party No.1. The complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this Forum. He has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. He has failed to disclose any legal and valid cause-of-action against opposite party No.1. He has created the false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum. There is neither any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 nor it has indulged in unfair trade practice. As such, the complainant does not fall within the ambit of provisions of law. Opposite party No.1 floated the insurance schemes for the public in general after prior approval of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA). All the terms and conditions of the respective insurance policies are set by IRDA constituted under IRDA Act, 1999 and Insurance Act, 1938. On merits, insurance of vehicle in question and receipt of premium is not denied. It is also mentioned that opposite party No.1 issued the policy alongwith its terms and conditions. The complainant lodged FIR after too much delay and further failed to give information about the theft of the vehicle immediately to opposite party No.1. He is bound to give information to the police and opposite party No.1 at the earliest as per the policy terms and conditions. He himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also alleged that the complainant lodged the claim under the policy after 2 days i.e on 30.11.2016. Opposite party No.1 required some documents for processing the claim under the policy. It sent so many letters to the complainant, but he failed to provide the documents. As such, no decision was ever taken by opposite party No.1. It is also mentioned that opposite party No.1 is ready to pay IDV subject to provide final report on necessary deduction. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. In the written version, opposite party Nos.2 has also raised the legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. The complainant purchased the car after taking finance of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 17.7.2015 from opposite party No.2. At that time, he agreed to repay this amount in monthly installments of Rs.7100/- per month, but thereafter he did not pay the monthly installments to opposite party No.2. A sum of Rs.3,30,000/- is due against him. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. It is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is owner of vehicle in question. It is reiterated that he purchased the car after taking finance from opposite party No.2. All other averments of the complainant are denied mainly for the reason that these are not related to opposite party No.2. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29.8.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of R.C, (Ex.C2); photocopy of certificate-cum-policy schedule, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); photocopy of FIR, (Ex.C5); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C6); photocopy of postal receipt, (Ex.C7) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shailesh Vindal dated 23.10.2017, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of claim file, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nishant Mehra dated 5.12.2017, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for complainant has also submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant got his vehicle insured with opposite party No.1 for the period from 26.3.2016 to 25.3.2017. IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,13,000/-. The vehicle was stolen in the night of 27/28.11.2016. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has not settled the claim so far. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant failed to give information about theft of the vehicle immediately. In the later part of written version, it is mentioned that opposite party No.1 required some documents to process the claim and it sent so many letters to the complainant, but he did not provide the documents to process the claim. Opposite party No.1 has not briefed the documents required from the complainant. However, the complainant has placed on record copy of letter dated 19.12.2016, (Ex.C4) received from opposite party No.1. Vide this letter, opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to furnish copy of FIR, R.C, keys of insured vehicle, loss existence proof, photocopy of adhaar card, non-repossession letter, NOC and copy of final untrace report. The complainant has produced on record copy of FIR, copy of which was also supplied to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has produced the claim file. Copies of adhaar card, D.L and pan card are available in file, whcih proves that all these documents were furnished to opposite party No.1. In the written version, opposite party No.1 has also expressed its readiness to pay IDV of the vehicle subject to furnishing final report. In this way, opposite party No.1 has acknowledged the receipt of other documents except final report. The main point is whether the complainant is in possession of final report or not. He is not supposed to be in possession of final report. Copy of FIR has already been provided to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has also written letter to S.H.O of P.S, Civil Lines, Bathinda on 17.3.2017, copy of which is part of claim file. Vide this letter, opposite party No.1 has requested for intimation about recovery of vehicle. The police was also requested to intimate as and when subject vehicle was recovered. Opposite party No.1 has also obtained subrogation rights against indemnification of the loss to the insured i.e. opposite party No.1. Therefore, in these circumstances, the complainant cannot be forced to submit the final report. Opposite party No.1 can verify the facts from the concerned police station through its surveyor/investigator. The complainant is entitled to IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,13,000/-. The complainant himself has impleaded opposite party No.2. Although, he has not revealed regarding availing of financial assistance from opposite party No.2, but it was certainly impleaded for the reason that the complainant availed the financial assistance from it. Opposite party No.2 in the written version as well as in affidavit has pleaded that a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- was outstanding against the complainant. The complainant has not rebutted this version. Therefore, opposite party No.2 will be having first right to receive outstanding amount found due till date of payment. The remaining amount shall be payable to the complainant out of IDV. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay amount to opposite party No.2 found payable till date of payment and remaining amount out of IDV i.e. Rs.5,13,000/- to the complainant. The payable amount will be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The compliance regarding cost and compensation of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of order within stipulated period, thereafter the interest @ 12% per annum will yield on the amount payable to the complainant. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 26-04-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
