Date of filing:21.4.2014
Date of Disposal:3.7.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2014.
C.C.No.105 OF 2014
Between :
Gundala Koteswara Rao, S/o Nancharaya, Hindu, 34 years, R/o Penamakuru, Totlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. The Manager, Kanakadurga Leasing & Finance Ltd., Jammichettu Centre, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada.
2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Manager, D.No.40-1-55/A,
V.V.R. Square, Near Benz Circle, M.G.Road, Vijayawada.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 17.6.2014 in the presence of Sri M.Vasantha Kumar, Advocate for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased an Auto Rickshaw for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- for which the complainant availed financial assistance of Rs.1,45,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 14.2.2011 with 14.5% agreed rate of interest. But the 1st opposite party sanctioned only Rs.1,25,000/-. But the remaining Rs.20,000/- was given to the complainant under hand loan. The complainant agreed to pay the same in 30 EMIs at the rate of Rs.5,700/- and subsequently the EMIs is reduced to Rs.5,012/-. Accordingly the complainant paid some EMIs regularly from 14.2.2011 to 14.11.2011. The complainant insured his vehicle with the 2nd opposite party. Subsequently the complainant went to Tirupathi on 12.9.2011 by parking his Auto in the premises of his house. On 16.9.2011 he returned from Tirupathi and found that his Auto was missing. He made several efforts to trace his Auto, but in vain. Therefore the complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 23.11.2011. But the police did not initiate any action to trace the vehicle. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite parties and submitted claim form to the 2nd opposite party through the 1st opposite party with whom the vehicle was under hypothecation. But either of the opposite parties did not respond to the claim made by the complainant. Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to settle the claim and to pay damages, but in vain. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the 1st opposite party to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, to direct the 2nd opposite party to pay insurance claim according to the terms and conditions of the policy and to pay costs.
2. Notices were served to opposite parties 1 and 2. But they are remained absent.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
towards the complainant in settling the claim of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. The complainant purchased Auto Rickshaw for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- by availing finance assistance of Rs.1,45,000/- from the 1st opposite party on 14.2.2011 with 14.5% agreed interest under Ex.A.1. But the 1st opposite party sanctioned only Rs.1,25,000/- and the remaining amount of rs.20,000/- was given to the complainant under hand loan. Ex.A.2 shows that the said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 28.2.2011 and the same was insured with the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.3 motor vehicle cover note on 14.2.2011. The complainant says that he went to Tirupathi on 12.9.2011 by parking his Auto in his house premises and on 16.9.2011 he returned from Tirupathi and found that his Auto was missing. He made several efforts to trace his Auto but in vain. Therefore the complainant lodged a complaint under Ex.A.5 with the police on 23.11.2011. But the police did not take any action to trace the vehicle. The complainant informed the said fact to the opposite parties under Ex.A.6 requesting the opposite party to take steps as per the guidelines of Leasing and Finance Act the 1st opposite party holds all the liabilities either to claim the insurance or to intimate to M.V.I. Inspector. The 1st opposite party received the same under Ex.A.7 acknowledgement. But there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant gave notice to the 2nd opposite party. The police gave final report under Ex.A.8 dated 4.1.2014 stating that the stolen vehicle was not found. All possible efforts were made to detect the case, but in vain. The complainant in his affidavit stated that the vehicle was traced by the Vuyyuru Police at Agiripalli Auto Stand only except the shell, all the parts are thefted by the offenders. Ex.A.9 the photographs of the thefted vehicle shows the same.
7. We noticed in the complaint that the vehicle of the complainant was purchased on 14.2.2011 and he came to know on 16.9.2011 that the vehicle was thefted by some one and the complainant lodged a complaint with the police on 23.11.2011 after lapse of two months 7 days. There is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party immediately after theft of the vehicle. As per insurance policy the intimation about the incident must be intimated immediately to the insurance company by written complaint. But no complaint was made by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party and the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not giving intimation immediately about the theft of his vehicle to the 2nd opposite party. There was delay of two months seven days in lodging a complaint with the police. Hence as per insurance policy terms and conditions, the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any amount for the loss in theft of the vehicle in hypothecation. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 3rd day of July, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 G.Koteswara Rao None.
Complainant
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 14.02.2011 Photocopy of Quotation of Kanakadurga Leasing & Finance
Limited, Vijayawada.
Ex.A.2 28.02.2011 Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.
Ex.A.3 14.02.2011 Photocopy of motor vehicle cover note.
Ex.A.4 26.3.2011 Photocopy of Permit issued by RTA, Vijayawada.
Ex.A.5 23.11.2011 Photocopy of First Information Report.
Ex.A.6 04.01.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.7 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.8 . . Attested copy of Case Diary – part I.
Ex.A.9 . . 7 photographs.
For the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
