Date of Filing : 23.05.2012
Date of Order : 07.07.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 7th JULY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 62 / 2012
Sri. Satish Kumar, S/o. Lakshamaiah,
Major by aged,
R/at: Dodda Hosala Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri. A. Srinivasa, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
The Manager,
M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,
No. 174/1, I Floor,
Gokul Complex, M.B. Road,
Kolar Town.
(By Sri. C.M. Niranjana Swamy, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.13,208/- and interest @ 18% P.A. are necessary:-
Complainant has hypothecated his Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing No. KA-02/MA-1260 with the OP. After collecting the premium, OP has issued Insurance Policy under Transfer Policy No. 10003/31/11/460439 which is valid from 03.11.2011 to 25.02.2012. The vehicle met with an accident in Kerala which was informed to the OP and it was towed to Kolar and at the request of the OP it was left with H.M.M.S. Tinker & Painting Works at Kolar who issued quotation for Rs.19,800/-. One S.N. Venugopal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor has visited the Garage and assessed the loss at Rs.11,400/- and issued Certificate to the OP. After completing all the formalities, OP has paid Rs.3,192/- on 02.01.2012 and remaining amount has been rejected for the reason “less panting cover under PCCV-4 for Rs.7,450/- and less No Claim Bonus of Rs.758/-”. Complainant sent e-mail for which OP has stated that Rs.8,208/- has been repudiated for the reasons stated supra. Notice was issued and it has not been complied with. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. In brief the version of OP are:-
The Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary part i.e., Insurance Company who has issued the Insurance Policy to the vehicle in question. OP is unnecessary party to the proceedings. All the allegations to the contrary are denied. OP is granting vehicle loan to the needy persons and it is not an Insurance Company.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant had filed his affidavit and Counsel for the OP has submitted that his version be read as his evidence. Hence, arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Negative
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that Complainant is the owner of the vehicle KA-02/MA-1260 and it was insured. The said vehicle met with an accident and the quotation that was given by the repairer was for Rs.19,800/- and one Venugopal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor has assessed the repair value as Rs.11,400/- and in that regard, according to the Complainant he was paid Rs.3,198/- and balance not paid. Here Policy is issued by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office-III, E-8, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan – 302 022. It is not the OP. OP is Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Insurance Company is different and the said Insurance Company is not a party to the proceedings. Hence, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
7. Here, the contention of the Complainant is that OP has collected Insurance premium and OP has paid the amount. There is no material to show OP has paid any amount to the Complainant or OP has issued Insurance Policy or collected the premium. Even Complainant has purposefully not produced the Policy. If the Policy was produced, it could have proved that it is not OP who is the insurer, but it is somebody else. Hence, under these circumstances, if the Complainant is entitled to, he is at liberty to file fresh complaint against the concerned Insurance Company for an appropriate relief for which this Order will not come in the way.
8. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and we pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the Complainant to file a fresh Complaint against the concerned Insurance Company.
2. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th of July 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
