Orissa

Kalahandi

CC/17/2014

Sri Athar Raj S/O-Kamal Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager M/S Sriram Transports finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

            The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant  alleging deficiency in service  against the afore said O.Ps  with regard to non payment  of the insurance amount.  The brief facts of the case is briefly summarised  hereunder.

            That the  complainant is  the owner of the Bolero pick up vehicle bearing  Registration  No. OR-08-G-5269, which stood insured with  Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., vide policy  No. 10003  / 31 /  12  /  612347. The said  vehicle having  met with an accident suffered damages, which fact   was duely  intimated to the  O.P. but the latter never took steps for payment  of insurance claims made by him to the tune of Rs. 3,76,666/- on account of damages caused to  his vehicle in such accident. Hence this case. The  complainant prays  the forum to direct the O.Ps to    pay Rs.3,76,666/- towards   cost and compensation and such other  relief as the court deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being  noticed the O.P. filed  written version through  their learned counsel  and submitted that  the present complaint case is not maintainable  in the eyes of law and therefore  the same is liable to be rejected. The O.P. No.1   does not admit  the averments   made in the  petition   and called  upon  the complainant  for strict proof  of the same and denied.    The O.P. prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint petition against the O.P.

The O.P  appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsel for the O.P and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, written argument  filed by both  the parties. 

The  learned counsel  for the O.P. vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to insurance claim made by him ?

            During argument the learned counsel for the complainant argued  that  the complainant had  taken a term loan  from the  O.P. to purchase a  Mahindra  Bolero  pick up  vide Regd. No. OR-08-G-529 .   He  made payment a sum of Rs.19,100/-  on Dt.5.11.2011 towards insurance  for  the above vehicle. Unfortunately on Dt. 14.09.2012 the above vehicle met with accident on the high way near Rairakhol  and  station diary was registered  bearing  P.S. No.100. Further The  complainant  deposited a sum  of Rs.16,729/-  on Dt. 5.1.2013 towards  insurance after expiry of the first insurance. Again on Dt. 235.3.2013 the above vehicle met with an accident at  Bhawanipatna and  station diary was  registered  bearing  vide SDI No.100. The complainant argued  that both the accident  of  vehicle  was intimated to the  O.P.  in  time  as the O.P   had  kept  the insurance papers  in  his custody . The  O.P. argued in its objection that the insurance company was liable for it.

            Further  on  perusal  of the written  argument filed by the complainant   it is revealed that  the complainant had deposited   insurance amount of Rs.19,700/- on Dt. 5.11.2011  in  favour of O.P.  and agreement with  Sriram General  insurance  (its own branch) and had insured the vehicle vide insurance policy  No. 10003/ 31 / 393585  which  is  revealed from the document which annexed by the O.P. before the forum.

            The  O.P. contended that the  complainant had not produce any document or receipt in support of his claim that he had deposited a  sum  of  Rs.19,700/- towards payment of insurance on Dt. 5.11.2011 and claimed that the O.P  created working capital loan in favour of the complainant a sum of Rs.19,700/- and the same  had been paid towards insurance vide policy No. 1003/31/13/37235.  The  O.P. also contended that the complainant subsequent obtain an  insurance   policy  No.550903311215100001827 covering period from 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2013. Policy of New India Assurance company and requested the O.P. to cancel the previous policy  covering the period  Dt. 31.10.12 to 30.10.2013 and accordingly the O.P. cancelled the policy of Sriram General Insurance company as above and  credited  Rs.16,729/- in the account  of the  complainant. The complainant on the other hand argued that  he was  paying  the installment  and insurance amount  to the agent of the O.P.and was signing papers as per the direction  of the agent  of the O.P.  He  also vehemently  argued that he had  never  made  any  request to the O.P. to cancel the policy  made by the O.P. through   Shriram  General Insurance Company.   He argued  that  to avoid  their  liability  the  O.P. has created   all  the documents  regarding cancellation of the policy and  creation of new policy through New India Assurance Company and also regarding refund of the premium towards the  policy of Shriram  General   Insurance Company.   He also argued that he had not applied for any working capital to the O.P.

            Admittedly the Shriram General Insurance Company is subsidiary company of the O.P. i.e. Shriram  Transport Finance Ltd.   It  is also a general practice that the financer used to pay the premium and obtained insurance policy on behalf of the loanee.  It is also  not  an exception in the present case. It is   admitted by the O.P. that the Ist. Policy Shriram General Insurance  Company  Ltd.  Covering the period  from 31.10.2011 to 30.10.2012   against the  vehicle of the complainant. Vide policy No.10003/ 31 / 12 /393585 was  done by the O.P. The O.P. also admitted   that  the  subsequent policy  of Shriram General Insurance  company  covering for the period  from 31.10.2012 to 30.10.2013  was also done by the O.P. by  creating  a working capital  loan in  favour of the complainant.  The O.P. also  admitted  that   the subsequent policy was cancelled by the O.P. and after deducting some amount  and the rest  amount  was deposited    in the account of the complainant. So the claim of the O.P. that   they are only financer and not  concern with  the insurance which is prerogative of the complainant is hard to belief.

            The  complainant argued that at the time of finance the O.P. assured   him  that as the vehicle is insured   in their  accredated company  they will  take do the needful  in case of  the vehicle  meet accident during the policy  period.

            According to the complainant the vehicle met with  an accident on 14.09.2012 near Rairakhal  which was  registered  Rairakhal P.S. case No. 100 Dt. 14.4.2012 and he reported the same to the O.P.  who  promised to process the insurance claim for  the damages of the vehicle.  The complainant  repaired  his insured  vehicle by spending a sum of Rs.40,588/- but the O.P. remain silent and did not process the claim for re-imbursement of the  expenditure  made by the complainant.

            The vehicle of the  complainant met  with an accident again onDt. 25.3.2013 near Sirliguda and the vehicle  was severely  damaged including damage to the   chasis and the complainant  also intimated the O.P. who promised to process the insurance  claim.   The  complainant repaired the vehicle from his own source  and spent a sum  of Rs. 1,26,078/- but due to in action  and callous attitude he  did not   get the  genuine  insurance  claim.

            Due to this  attitude  of   the O.P. the complainant  preferred to file this case before the forum along with Xerox  copies of  the bills  in support of the  expenditure   towards cost of repair of his vehicle as the original bills had been submitted to the O.P.  for  insurance claim.

            The vital   argument  advanced by the O.P. are two fold that the insurance policy were opted by the complainant and that  the complainant   should  have made the insurance as party and should  have  claimed the  repair  cost  from the insurance company.

            But the allegation of the complainant  is that  he  has been  deprived of  to get  the  insurance  claim  due to in action and callous attitude of the  O.P.  and as such there is  deficiency   of  service  on his  part.  Further  he  had no  direct knowledge  regarding insurance  policy  as the same had been        looked  after by the O.P.  He has blindly believed the promise made by the O.P. who is the financer and has deposited the payment towards premium  to the  agent who was also collecting  the  monthly loan instalments .

            On hearing both the parties and  perusing all the documents we found that the  O.P. who  is the financer  of the vehicle of the complainant  is taking the insurance policy on behalf of the complainant. The  vehicle of the complainant  is also hyphothicated  to the O.P. who is as such  the  co-owner of the vehicle.  As per the  Hon’ble National Commission   reported  in 2014(3) CPR- Page No. 443  “Under hire purchase agreement it is the financier who is the  owner of the vehicle”   So  it is  also the responsibility of the O.P. to see that  insurance  claim is  duly processed and the damages is indemnified for the insurance company,  as  the insurance money is to  be adjusted  towards the loan amount.  Both  the accident  as   alleged   had been taken place  even the  vehicle of the complainant is under  insurance coverage. So  now  we found that  the  O.P. is negligent in providing proper  Service to the complainant.  The O.P. has also not taken any steps to show that he has processed the claim before the insurer as financier co-owner  of the vehicle of the complainant. Though the  O.P. is   aware of  both the accident  being intimated by the complainant.

            The  complainant has produced the bills towards expenditure  made  by him during both the accident which  are  marked as Annexure-I to 4. The amount found to have  spent  by the complainant is not challenged by the O.P.  The learned counsel for the  O.P. filed  2  Nos. of citation  in connection  with this case   reported  in 2015 (1) O.L.R (CSR) – 700 The Manager, Golden Trust Financial  Service, Kolkota and another Vrs. Smt.  Padmini Behera and another verdict delivered  by  the  State C.D.R. Commission. In another citation  of  Supreme  Court  of India, in   Civil  Appeal  No. 3645 of 2015 verdict delivered on  16.4.2015   Central  Bank of India  Vrs.  Jagbir  Singh.  The above Citations filed by the O.P   which are not squarly  applicable to  the  present case. The  facts of the case   is  not identical to this present case.

            Hence to  meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In the result  with these observations, findings, discussions the complaint petition is allowed  partly  on contest against the O.P. 

The O.P.  is  directed  to  pay  Rs.1,66,666.00 to the complainant   towards the repair cost as discussed above.  The O.P. is further  directed    to pay  compensation  Rs.5,000/- towards  mental agony and   harassment caused to the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.

The O.P is ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as laid down in the  C.P.Act for realization of the  same  from the O.P..

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this      26th. Day of  September,  2015.

 

 

Member.                                             Member.                              President

                                                                                                               

 

 

Documents relied upon:-

By the complainant.

1.Retail  invoice of M/S. Laxmi Motors,  of  Bhawanipatna             Dt. 24.9.2012     

2.Xerox copies of the  Cash memo vide bill No. 83 Dt. 15.5.2013 of Biswanath Motor garage,  of  B.Patna= 1No.

3.Cash memo No.  82 Dt.15.5.2013  of  Biswanath Motor  garage  of  B.Patna 2 Nos.

4.Payment status of instament.

5.P.D.C details. 

 

By the O.P:-

1. Xerox copies of the judgement  in     P.L.A. case No. 71 of 2013.
2. Citations.
3. Customer  endorsement and cancellation request form.
4. Xerox copies of the policy bond No. 100003/31/13/372351.
5. Xerox copies of the policy bond No 55090331120100001827
6. Collection receipt and adjustment voucher.
7. Cancellation of   bond of Shriram  general   insurance  co.
8. Package policy endorsement schedule.