Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/84/2021

Rajbala - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DHFL Premerica Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Poonam Sangwan

23 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 84 of 2021

                                                         Date of Institution: 6.4.2021

                                                          Date of Decision: 23.11.2023

 

Rajbala wife of Ramanand, aged about 52 years and permanent resident of village and post office Sankroad, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

 

                                                                                    ..….Complainant.

Versus

1. The DHFL Premerica Life Insurance Company Limited, through its MD/CEO, Regd. Office 4^th Floor, Building No. 9, Tower B, Cyber City DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana).
2. Manager, Induslnd Bank, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri-127306

                                                                                                                                                    …....Respondents/OPs.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Before: -     Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:      Ms. Poonam Sangwan, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Rajat Sheoran, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 already exparte.

         

ORDER:-

              

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant owned and possessed vehicle No. HR-19P-0651 which was duly financed from OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 insured the loan amount of Rs. 7,20,000/-of complainant under certificate of insurance No. GC00027032GT00 valid from 17.6.2019 to 16.6.2024 through OP No.1. The said vehicle of complainant was stolen on 22.1.2020 and an FIR No. 2620 dated 22.1.2020 u/s 379 IPC was got registered with Crime Branch Delhi. It is averred that the complainant visited and requested the OPs to waive off the loan amount outstanding on the date of theft of vehicle and to refund the excess loan amount deposited, but till date loan amount has not been waived off. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant seeks directions against the OPs to waive off the loan amount outstanding on the date of theft of vehicle and to pay back the loan installments deposited after the theft of vehicle, along with interest, compensation and the cost of litigation expenses besides any other cost which this Commission may deem fit and proper.

2.                On notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed the written statement whereas the OP No. 2 failed to appear before this Commission and therefore, the OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.9.2021.

3.                The OP No. 1 in its written statement took some preliminary objections such as the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law, the complainant is trying to deceive and mislead the Commission by stating wrong facts and the complainant is seeking relief which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission etc. etc. On merits, it is averred by the OP No.1 that the subject policy was obtained by the complainant to secure the car loan obtained by her from the OP No.2 bank, therefore, the answering OP No. 1 after receipt of the premium amount, had issued the policy to cover the risk on the life of complainant. According to the said policy, the answering OP No. 1 would be liable to pay the claim in case of death of policy holder (complainant). It is averred that as the policy holder is still alive, she is not entitled for any amount under the policy in question from the answering OP. Furthermore, the answering OP No.1 is in the business of providing life insurance to its customers and in the present case, the complainant is claiming the benefit for stolen vehicle which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, there is no liability of the company to pay any amount to the complainant.  It is averred that in the present case, the vehicle has been stolen, therefore, the complainant should have claimed the benefit from the Motor Insurance Company who insured her vehicle. It is averred that the answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation due to ignorance of complainant. It is denied by the answering OP that the complainant is entitled for waiver of outstanding loan or refund of premium paid after theft of vehicle. It is also denied that the complainant is entitled for any compensation or litigation etc. Accordingly, dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP No.1.

4.                The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-10 and closed the evidence on 30.5.2022.

5.                On the other hand, the OP No.1 closed the evidence after tendering into evidence affidavit Ex. DW-1/A on 12.12.2022.

6.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant as well as gone through the contents of written arguments submitted by the counsel on behalf of OP No.1 and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by both the parties very carefully and minutely.

7.                We have observed that as per the contents of complaint filed by the complainant, vehicle registration No. HR19P0651 relating to the complainant was financed by the OP No. 2 bank and a loan amount of Rs. 72,000/- was covered/secured by the OP No.1 under insurance policy No. GC000027032GT00. As alleged by the complainant, the said vehicle was stolen on 22.1.2020 during the validity of the said insurance policy and hence, he is entitled for relief and accordingly, prayer against the OPs to waive off the loan amount outstanding on the date of theft of vehicle and to pay back the loan installments deposited after theft of her vehicle, has been made by the complainant through the present complaint.

8.                We have perused the said insurance policy No. GC000027032GT00 duly issued by the OP No. 1 in the name and address of complainant Smt. Rajbala Devi through Welcome Letter (Ex. C-2) on 28.6.2019. Minute perusal of said letter (Ex. C-2) shows that the complainant had choosen DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance policy which covered single life (complainant) which is clear from Policy Details Cover Basis column of the said Certificate of Insurance (certificate No. GC000027032GT00). It means that this is merely a life insurance policy (and not a motor vehicle insurance policy), whereby the life of complainant was covered for sum assured of Rs. 7,20,000/-from 17.6.2019 to 16.6.2024. The perusal of “Abstract of Terms and Conditions and Benefits” of the said policy also establishes this fact that under this policy only Death Benefits, Terminal Illness benefit and Accelerated Accidental Total and Permanent Disability Benefits are covered. However, the complainant has requested before this Commission to waive off the loan amount outstanding on the date of theft of vehicle and to pay back the loan installments deposited after theft of her vehicle but the relief sought is not permissible under the terms and conditions of said insurance policy (certificate No. GC000027032GT00). Hence, the version of the complainant of his complaint (that she visited and requested the OPs to waive off the loan amount outstanding on the date of theft of vehicle and to refund the excess loan amount deposited, but till date loan amount has not been waived off), in our considered opinion, is a futile exercise of complainant being beyond the terms and conditions of the policy.                

9.                Further, if the vehicle of complainant has been stolen, then in our considered view, she (complainant) should have claimed the benefits from the Motor Insurance Company who insured the said vehicle of complainant but it has been observed that the complainant did not adopt such remedy. The subject policy is a life insurance policy whereby the life of complainant was/is insured whereas the vehicle in question of complainant is not insured under the said insurance policy ( vide certificate No. GC000027032GT00). Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant is not entitled for any relief regarding stolen of his vehicle under the policy in question because it is a life insurance policy and not any motor vehicle insurance policy.

10.           In view of above discussion, finding and observations, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant and any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of any of the OPs. The present complaint is therefore, not maintainable and hence, we hereby dismiss the present complaint of complainant with no orders as costs, being not maintainable.

11.           Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

12.           File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 23.11.2023

 

 

                   (Dharam Pal Rauhilla)                                         (Manjit Singh Naryal)

                            Member                                                       President,

                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri.