Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/29

Jitendra Kumar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE G.M., MAGMA HDI CENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Panday

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complainant Jitendra  Kumar Singh filed this case for a claim of Rs. 19,42,090/- with Bank interest since 22/11/2013 and compensation or Rs. 15000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-

2          The case of the complainant is short is that he was the owner of Goods Carriage Truck having registration No. JH-02W-7095 under hire purchase agreement with O.P. No.1 M/s Magma Finance Ltd. The Vehicle was duly insured from O.P. No. M/s Magma HD/General Insurance Co. Ltd. having policy no. P0014400002/4103/163130 dt. 31-08-2013. The Policy was valid up to mid night 30/08/2014 the NAV of the vehicle was Rs. 19,42,090/-

            The vehicle was looted on 22-11-2013 for which Dehri Nagar P.S. Case No. 642/13 dt. 28-11-2013 was lodged for offence U/S 394 I.P.C. The final form was submitted after investigation as true. The vehicle was loaded with food grains etc.

            Complainant has also informed the O.P. No.1 the Insurance Co. but after verification no relief was granted. The claim in yet to be finalized.

            Then, a legal notice was sent but no reply. The conduct of O.P. is a deficiency in service without any reason.

3          The following documents are filed in support by the complainant:-

            Anx-1- Copy of the Insurance Policy.

            Anx-2- Copy of the Registration of the vehicle.

            Anx-3 to 3/1 Copy of the fardbeyan dt. 28-11-2013 and F.F.

            Anx-4- Copy of the order dt. 20-04-2015 –F.F. was accepted by

              S.D.J.M.

            Anx-5 to 5/1- Copy of letter dt. 18-06-2015 to O.P. No.1

            Anx-6 to 6/2- Copies of Tax invoice of food grains.

            Anx-7 to 7/1 Copy of Driving License and National Permit.

            Anx-8- Copy of summon to the complainant for offence U/s

                          138/N.I.  Ach.

            Anx-9- Copy of legal Notice.

4          O.P. No.1 M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed W.S. It is stated that case is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. Complainant is also not a consumer as it is admitted that the alleged truck was loaded with food grains showing it was plying for commercial purpose.

            The policy is admitted subject to terms and condition. It is submitted that the information of stolen of truck was given offer eight days of the occurrence which should be within 24 hours. The information to the police was also given after five days. Thus, complainant has also violated the condition of the policy.

            O.P. No. relied on law F.A. 321/15 of N.C. in which 9 days delay for giving information was held to be fatal for the claim. It prayed to dismiss the case.

            It has filed Anx-A and Anx-B in support.

5          O.P. No.2 M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. appeared and has filed W.S.  It is stated and admitted that complainant had taken financial assistance on the basis of hire-purchase agreement for an amount of Rs. 18,00,00/- which was to be repayable in 33 monthly installment of Rs. 67,700/- Except first i9nstallment of Rs. 67900/- from 01-10-12 and thereafter 1^st day of every month as per the terms and condition. The term and condition contained an “Arbitration Clause” in the event of any dispute.

            It is further stated that complainant failed to repay loan as per stipulated schedule and this O.P. send a demand notice cum termination notice dt 25-04-2014 and on account of refusal and failure, the matter was refereed to arbitration on 25-05-2014. The Award was passed for Rs. 12,86,250/- against the complainant.

            The O.P. No.2 relied on law of N.C. 2006(3) CPR 339(NC) and it was observed that “ A Complainant cannot be decided by the consumer For a after an arbitration award is already passed”

            Therefore, this O.P. is not liable for any deficiency.

This O.P. has filed Anx-C the Copy of Arbitration Award dated 09-09-2014 by Sole arbitration in Arb. Case No. 729/14.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record and hold complainant is a consumer having taken loan and insurance for the vehicle purchased on payment and dispute is consumer dispute.

7          The Contention of the complainant is that O.P. No.1 is insurance company has not clear the claim on account of stolen vehicle and this is deficiency in service and further O.P. No.2 should not recover the amount is this situation.

            On perusal of the documents filed by the complaint and O.P. No.1, it appears that there was delay of eight days from the date when the vehicle was looted. This O.P. could not get opportunity to verify the occurrence and making efforts to search the vehicle. It is also appears from the fardbeyan (Anx-3) dt. 28-11-2013, that information to police was given five days after the occurrence. Therefore, even police could not get prompt time to investigate the occurrence and recovering of the vehicle.

            So, far O.P. No.2 is concurred, it has no role in settling the insurance claim.

            The O.P. No.1 has relied on the law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission where 9 days delay in giving information was held fatal. In this case there is eight days delay and this law is applicable in the instant case.

8          Therefore, we hold that the case is not maintainable and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

            O/C is directed to deposit in the record room.