BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 8 of 2017
Tariful Islam Hazari
S/o Lt. Fariz Ali Hazari
Vill- Madhurbond, P.O.& P.S- Silchar………….. ………………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
- The IndusInd Bank Ltd.
N.S Avenue, Silchar-788005 O.P No.1
- The Deputy Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
G.S. Road, Dispur, Guwahati- 6 O.P No.2
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Md. Kutub Uddin, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Jhumur Dhar, Advocate for the O.P No.1.
Mr. S.S. Dutta, Advocate for the O.P No.2.
Date of Evidence 27-03-2018, 09-08-2018
Date of written argument 20-07-18, 09-08-18, 30-08-18
Date of oral argument 01-10-2018
Date of judgment 30-10-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The complainant brought against the financer and insurer in respect of vehicle bearing Regd. No. MZ05/6701 under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for award of sum insured and compensation etc.
- The complainant Tariful Islam Hazari brought the following material fact to get the aforesaid reliefs:-
He purchased the aforesaid vehicle on financial aid from the IndusInd Bank, Silchar Branch. The said vehicle was insured with Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. But on 18-04-2012 the vehicle has been stolen away from the road at Mamit District, Mizoram. Accordingly FIR lodged. The Kanhmun Police made GD entry No. 290 on 21-04-2012 and after inquiry submitted Final Report on 19-02-2014 that the vehicle was unable to recover. Subsequently, the financer of the vehicle settled the claim with the insurer beyond the knowledge of the complainant in most illegal and irregular manner.
- Hence, this complaint brought for award of Rs.5,98,2014 which includes initial margin money of RS. 2,53,904. Cost of the body building Rs.1,84,300 and payment of IndusInd discharge Rs.1,60,000/-. The insurance company did not contest the case but financer in its W/S admitted the fact that it settled the claim with insurance company and receive the settled amount of Rs.10,09,438/- on 31-03-2014 and after adjustment of outstanding dues of loan account offered the balance amount of Rs.63,637/- to the complainant.
- During hearing the complainant submitted his deposition with documents. The O.P No.1 also submitted deposition of Sri Abhishek Baidya and exhibited some documents. The O.P No.1 also submitted deposition of Sri Dhrubajyoti Raj kumar. The 3rd witness of No. No.1 is Sri Sabir Alam Choudhury. The said witness also exhibited loan account to establish the fact that claim of the financer has been settled with insurance within the knowledge of the complainant. After closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted written arguments.
- In this case it is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Forum adjudicate the dispute between consumer and service provider in view of the provision of section 2(I)(d) and Section 2(I) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. But in the instant case in view of evidence on record it is evident that the complainant is borrower and the O.P No.1 is financer i.e. money lender. Thus any dispute regarding loan transaction is not within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Of course, the vehicle in question was insured with insurer by the complainant, vide Ext-B and Annexure-2. So, there is a relation between the complainant and insurer as a consumer and service provider. So, any dispute between them regarding service in term of insurance policy are well within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate subject to limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- But in this case there is no specific fact brought as when claim has been submitted to the insurer in view of insurance policy and when the insurer refused a repudiate the clause. As such in this case I do not find any fact and evidence to conclude that there was a cause of action against the insurer and the said cause of action arose on a particular date.
- As such in my considered view no relief can be granted against the O.P No.1 i.e. insurer. Of course, the insurer very illegally and unusual manner settled the claim of the financer and paid sum insured to the financer. That is why, the complainant may approach the appropriate Forum/Court for remedies subject to limitation if any from the date of actual cause of action.
- With the above, this case is dismissed on contest without cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.
