Haryana

StateCommission

A/945/2015

ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOMBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 945 & 1109 of 2015

Date of Institution: 21.10.2015 & 23.12.2015

Date of Decision: 07.02.2017

Appeal No.945 of 2015

 

Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, now merged in IndusInd Bank Limited, SCO 99, 2^nd Floor Green Square Market, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Hisar through its Manager Legal Shri Sunil Kalra.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Sombir Singh s/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Resident of Village Bindrawan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

Respondent-complainant

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCF No.8, Commercial Urban Estate, 1 Red Square Market, Hisar.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

                                                                                                                  

Argued by:          Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.1109 of 2015

 

Sombir Singh s/o Sh. Mahender Singh, Resident of Village Bindrawan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCF No.8, Commercial Urban Estate, 1 Red Square Market, Hisar.

2.      Ashok Leyland Finance Limited, through its Manager, 216, Ist Floor, Green Square Market, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Hisar.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No. 945 and  1109 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated August 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘the District Forum’), in complaint No.93 of 2010 filed by Sombir Singh-complainant.

2.                Sombir Singh-complainant owned truck bearing registration No.HR-18-3870. It was financed with Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the financer’)-Opposite Party No.2 and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.1. On August 22^nd, 2002 the employees of the financer snatched the vehicle due to non-payment of monthly instalments. The complainant lodged First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 342,323,506 of the indian Penal Code (Annexure R-1/11) in Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani. However, on the way, when the truck was being taken after snatching and was in custody of the officials of financer, it met with an accident and damaged. FIR No.140 dated 22.09.2002 (Annexure R1/12) was lodged under Sections 279,337,304-A of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Kanalaur, District Rohtak. The complainant informed the Insurance Company. The complainant got prepared estimate for repair of truck from Telemos Automobiles Private Limited which was at Rs.4,07,241/-. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the amount.  Hence complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.1 in its written version stated that after receiving information, surveyor/investigator was appointed who assessed the loss of truck at Rs.2,22,852/-. It was further stated that the insured as well as the financer did not produce the relevant documents and driving licence of driver who was driving the truck at the time of accident enabling the insurer to settle the claim. Thus, denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The financer-opposite party No.2 in its separate written version stated that the complainant got financed his truck for Rs.2,80,000/- and the financed amount was to be paid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs.13,000/-. The complainant was chronic defaulter with respect to the payment of instalments and on the date of filing written version, a sum of Rs.2,23,540/- was due against the complainant.  Denying the allegation of the complainant with respect to snatching of the truck, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“..we direct Op No.2 to supply the driving licence of the person, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, to OP No.1 and after receipt of the driving licence, OP No.1 is directed to settle the claim within 90 days. If, OP No.2 fails to supply the driving licence to OP No.1, then it will be entire responsibility of OP No.2, and the complainant can take the re-course of the legal proceedings for its claim against Op No.2 by way of filing Civil Suit in the competent court of law, if so advised.”

6.                Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the financer-opposite party No.2 has filed appeal No.945/2015 for setting aside the impugned order and the complainant has filed appeal No.1109/2015 for modification of the impugned order.

7.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. Record perused.

8.                On behalf of the Insurance Company, it was argued that the Insurance Company is ready to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor Lt.Col. G.P.S. Bagga (Retd.), vide report Annexure R-1/3 whereby the net loss was assessed at Rs.2,22,852.57, however, subject to providing the name of driver and his driving licence.

9.                It is not disputed that the truck was insured with the Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the truck was snatched by the officials of the financer-opposite party No.2. Annexure A-5 is the letter whereby the financer had authorised one Arvind Kumar to take the truck into possession. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the truck was taken into possession by the financer and he got registered FIR (Annexure R-1/11). Therefore, denial by the financer that it did not take the vehicle into possession is nothing but to avoid producing the driving licence of the driver.  

10.              Learned counsel for the financer-opposite parties submitted that the complainant also owed more than Rs.2.00 lacs to the financer. The complainant who is present in person does not deny this fact. In view of this, since it was the financer who was to produce the driving licence, for non-production of which the Insurance Company could not settle the claim; therefore, it was the duty of the financer to disclose name of driver and produce his driving license.   

11.              Thus, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are disposed of with certain modification that if the financer produces the driving licence of the driver, then the Insurance Company shall settle the claim within 90 days. In case of failure of opposite party No.2-financer to produce the licence, the complainant shall be entitled to adjustment of the amount assessed by the surveyor against the amount due towards him with respect to the finance charges. However, it is further made clear that in case the amount payable by the complainant exceeds the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor, then the financer shall be at liberty to recover the excess amount by due process of law.

12.              The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 07.02.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL