Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 585.
Instituted on : 28.11.2018
Decided on : 09.02.2024.
Om Parkash son of Chandgi Ram, resident of Kalanaur District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Tata Motors Finance Solution Ltd. 1st Floor, above Tanishq Show Room, Anand Palace, Chhottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, through its Manager.
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company, 2nd floor, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Raj, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he obtained a loan from the opposite partyNo.1 for purchase of vehicle in the year 2013 and was repaying the loan in regular instalments upto February 2016. The above said vehicle was duly insured with opposite party no.2. The above said vehicle was not registered with the Registration Authority, Rohtakdue to some State Govt. Rules but the insurance policy was being renewed every year. Unfortunately on 21.02.2016 the said vehicle was set ablaze by the unsocial elements in the JatAarakshan in front of complainant’s house. Complainant lodged an FIR in Kalanaur vide FIR No.365 dated 21.02.2016 at PS Kalanaur u/s 148, 149, 188, 435 IPC. Complainant also informed the opposite party No.2 for necessary action and the surveyor of the company took photographs of the burnt vehicle and asked the complainant to provide original bill of vehicle and insurance policy. After receiving the above documents, they assured the complainant that the claim will be settled and be adjusted in his loan account. On 21.08.2018 he received a notice from the advocate of respondent no.1 vide which the complainant was advised to compromise the matter by way of approaching the advocate of company upto 14.09.2018 or to pay Rs.190109/-. Opposite party no.1 has wrongly demanded the alleged amount by showing the mis-calculation. Complainant requested the opposite party no.2 to settle the claim and adjust the same in loan account of complainant with opposite party No.1. But till date the claim amount has not been settled by the opposite party No.2. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party no.2 may kindly be directed to settle the claim of the complainant and to pay the claim amount to respondent no.1 to adjust the due loan amount, after adjusting if any amount remains, then to pay to the complainant, to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its written statement has submitted that complainant has paid 21 instalments amounting to Rs.156234/- till date. The loan amount of Rs.210321/- is still pending against the complainant. The opposite party is legally entitled for the amount of Rs.210321/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. It is prayed that opposite party no.2 be directed to pay Rs.210321/- to the opposite party No.1.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the complaint is premature as no intimation regarding the vehicle in question having suffered the loss on 21.02.2016 has ever been received in the office of answering respondent till the date of receipt of present notice and no opportunity was given to answering respondent to assess the liability of the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is denied that any official of answering respondent or any surveyor being appointed by answering opposite party visited the alleged site, as alleged and collected any original bill, insurance policy and assured for the settlement of the claim as alleged. The opposite parties have checked their record but no claim has been found lodged with the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on 08.11.2019.Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on 22.01.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1and closed his evidence on 16.10.2020.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the complainant he had purchased the vehicle in the year 2013 and same was financed with respondent no.1 and insured from respondent no.2. On 21.02.2016 the said vehicle was ablazed by unsocial elements in Jat Reservation in front of the complainant’s house. An FIR No.365 dated 21.02.2016 was got registered in P.S.Kalanaur u/s 147, 148, 188,435 IPC. As per complainant he informed the respondent no.2 regarding the said loss and the vehicle was surveyed by the surveyor of insurance company and he also took photographs of the burnt vehicle and complainant submitted all the required documents with the insurance company for settlement of the claim. On 21.08.2018 he received a notice from the Advocate of the opposite party no.1 and through this notice the financer of the vehicle demanded a sum of Rs.190109/- on 14.09.2018. As per the complainant himself he purchased the vehicle in the year 2013 and his vehicle was damaged on dated 21.02.2016. Till date the vehicle of the complainant was not registered whereas he was plying the commercial vehicle on the road without registration. Moreover he has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that he registered his claim with the respondent no.2. No intimation, no claim number placed on record. Respondent no.2 also submitted that they have not received any intimation regarding any loss to the vehicle in question. So the question of appointing the surveyor or taking the photographs by the surveyor does not arise. As the complainant has not filed any claim with the opposite party no.2. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.02.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
