The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Lovedeep Singh prays for the necessary directions to the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.3.5 lakh amount of claim alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. to him and compensation of Rs.50,.000/- and legal expenses Rs.5,000/- and opposite party no.2 be directed not to harass him and  not to ask for monthly instalments till the decision of the claim matter and not to submit security cheques to encashment and not to detail the vehicle forcibly, in the interest of justice.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of Tata Tipper No.PB 08 B Q 9414, Ch.No.MAT 426031 AA 02374, En.No.01 H 62914642, Model 2010, fully insured by opposite party no.1 after receiving the premium vide insurance Policy No.10003/31/15/057505 dated 3.5.2014 for the period of insurance from 16.05.2014 to 15.5.2015. The vehicle in question was hypothecated by opposite party no.2. Sh.Satnam Masih son of James Masih resident of village Nawan Pind Bahadur P.O.Pul Tibri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur is General Power of Attorney of Lovedeep Singh son of Sh. Harinder Singh resident of village & P.O.Ghot Pokher Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and is entitled to file the present complaint. He has further pleaded that Tata Tipper in question suffered loss due to fault in machinery, the said Tata Tipper on 23.12.2014 turned down on road in the area of P.S.Sujanpur at about 11 am when after loading the sand from crasher was coming to Gurdaspur. Driver of the truck reported the matter on 23.12.2014. Complainant also reported to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 immediately. He suffered loss around Rs.3.5 lakh approximately. Apart from the said loss, he could not earn a single penny for his and his family’s livelihood and to fulfil daily needs and also suffered loss and he could  not continuously paid monthly instalments to the opposite parties no.2 after the accident.  He suffered more loss and unable to pay the instalments to opposite party no.2 due to opposite party no.1 who did not bother to even accept the claim case of the complainant. The act of the opposite party no.1 of not accepting the claim application and of not deputing any Surveyor even to assess the loss and to visit the spot is illegal, null and void. It is next pleaded that now opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the amount of bills paid of repair and machinery of vehicle to him alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. as well as amount of all pending instalments w.e.f December 2014 onwards, which he could not pay to the opposite party no.2 due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 of not paying the claim in time and he is also entitled to get the amount of interest on Rs.3 lakh borrowed by him from his relatives and friends. The act of the opposite parties is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Upon notice, the OP no.1 appeared and filed its reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company. The matter of fact is that first of all the complaint of the complainant is premature and no claim has ever been filed by the complainant regarding the accident alleged to be taken place on 23.12.2014. No such claim has ever been filed by the complainant and as such the question of deciding the claim arises.  The O.D. part of the policy has already been cancelled on 10.11.2014 and as such even otherwise there is no liability of insurance co. as there is no privity of contract between the parties on 23.12.2014, when the alleged accident took place so the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the present complaint is not legally maintainable and has not been properly filed. The present complaint has been filed by Satnam Masih who alleged himself to be the Power of attorney holder of Lovedeep Singh. Satnam Masih has no right to file the present complaint and even not authorized to file the present complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the policy having no.10003/31/15/057505 has been issued in the name of Lovedeep Singh for a period from 16.5.2014 to 15.5.2015 for vehicle having no.PB-08-BQ-9414 but the said policy has been cancelled on 10.11.2014 regarding the O.D. part and as such there is no privity of contract between the parties. It was further submitted that no question of deputing any surveyor arises as the matter has never been intimated to the insurance company neither any claim has been filed. There is no liability of the insurance company. It is the complainant who is at fault. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the insurance company. It was next submitted that the opposite party has no link with monthly instalments which is to be paid by the complainant. The matter of instalments and loan is between the complainant and opposite party no.2. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Upon notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action arise to the complainant for filing the present complaint against the opposite party no.2; the complainant has purchased the said truck for the commercial purposes and earning the profits only as such the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as per Consumer Protection Act; the complainant has not come to court with clean hand and concealed the material facts from this Ld.Forum; the complainant is no more the consumer of opposite party no.2 as he has already sold the vehicle in question; the complainant has not paid the requisite fee as required by law, as such he is liable to pay exemplary costs for filing this false and frivolous complaint and the jurisdiction of this Ld.Forum has been barred as the parties have agreed to raise all the issues and disputes before the Arbitrator as per the agreement. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has sold the said vehicle to Satnam Masih as such the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as now he is not the consumer of the opposite party no.2. The complainant has concealed the true facts from this Ld.Forum and filed false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party no.2. The vehicle in question has also been hypothecated at the name of said Satnam Masih. The complainant has tried to commit fraud with the opposite party by preparing false and frivolous documents to illegally claim from the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.    Satnam Masih, General Power of Attorney Holder of Lovedeep Singh tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C23 alongwith photographs Ex.C24 and Ex.C25 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajendra Sharma, authorized signatory of opposite party Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP30 and closed the evidence.

7.      Sh.Satish Kumar Retainer Adv. of Corporate Law Associates as constituted attorney of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/4 and closed the evidence.  

8.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants against the collateral side-drop of the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the root cause of the present dispute has been the unilateral cancellation of the Own Damage clause from the complainant’s vehicles’ otherwise alive insurance policy sans the requisite pre-notice and post-intimation. On the other hand the case of the OP is that the complaint is premature and no claim has ever been filed by the complainant regarding the accident alleged to have taken place on 23.12.2014. As no claim has been lodged/filed by the complainant so question of deciding the claim does not arise at all.

9.      From the entire above discussion we are of this considered view that the present complaint is otherwise premature since the opposite party has not yet finally decided the insurance claim as to the loss of vehicle as no claim has been ever filed with the OP by the complainant regarding the alleged accident which took place on 23.12.2014. Thus we dispose of the complaint and direct the complainant to approach the opposite party first and submit the requisite documents/information desired by them for settling the insurance claim within 15 days of the receipt of these orders and further direct the opposite party insurance providers to decide the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy within 30 days of the receipt of documents from the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to decide insurance claim duly filed by the complainants duly verified as per the settled procedure laid down by their regulating Agency IRDA.

10.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned. 

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

December,31 2015                                                               Member

*MK*