Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/608/2015

Ravi Sher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Tata Capital Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Nidhi Ayer

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/608/2015
Date of Institution	:	10/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	06/06/2018

 

Ravi Sher Singh s/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh r/o Vill. Muchhal, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Manager, Tata Capital Finance Limited, SCO No.114, District Shopping Complex Centre,
B-Block Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

2.     The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Corporation Ltd., SCO No.135-136, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. D.D. Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Vice Counsel for Sh. Vikrant Guleria, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations, in brief, are on being financed by OP-1, complainant had in the year 2008 purchased a Tata Indica car from the dealer Auto Mobile Kapoors, Amritsar. The vehicle was hypothecated with OP-1 and insured with OP-2.  The vehicle was registered with the DTO, Amritsar vide registration No.PB-02BA-8011. 

                The case is, on 3.4.2009, the aforesaid vehicle was stolen from Gali No.3, Adarsh Nagar, Ramtirath Road, Amritsar. The complainant immediately reported the matter and FIR No.56/2008 dated 6.2.2009 was registered. The complainant preferred insurance claim to OP-2.  On 7.5.2009, OP-2 had asked to supply the documents, police final report and other documents which were furnished and thereafter vide letter dated 1.10.2011 complainant was informed his claim had been approved subject to furnishing RC, letter of subrogation, letter of indemnity, claim form duly filled and signed, discharge voucher, ID proof, cancelled cheque and NOC from the financier. Thereafter a letter dated 1.10.2011 was sent by OP-2 to OP-1 regarding approval of claim for Rs.3.00 lakhs in favour of OP-1 and OP-1 was asked to issue the NOC and form No.35 so that the vehicle may be transferred in the name of OP-2. However, claim was not disbursed and the OPs employed unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for directing the OPs to settle the loan account and pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.         OP-1 filed its written reply and inter alia raised preliminary objections complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and as on date of furnishing reply on 4.7.2016, a sum of Rs.11,45,217/- was due to the creditor i.e. OP-1 from the complainant. Rest of the averments were partly admitted that installments were being regularly paid till 3.3.2009.  After the theft, complainant had stopped payment of installments to OP-1 in respect of the loan of the vehicle in question.  It is the case, NOC and form No.35 can be issued after receiving payment and when the loan account of the complainant is closed. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 had also filed its separate written reply.  Its claim is, instant consumer complaint is barred by law of limitation as the case was closed on 1.10.2011 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as there is a doubt regarding the truthfulness of version maintained in the FIR.  It is also the case, OP-2 on 12.9.2009 had written a letter to the complainant to furnish certain documents, but, the same were not furnished and the case of the complainant was closed on 1.10.2011.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         Separate replications were filed and the averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Scrutiny of the record, per reply and affidavit furnished on behalf of OP-2, shows claim of the complainant was closed on 1.10.2011 and thereafter no communication was made by the complainant.  These facts were sworn in on oath and it is also the case of the complainant on furnishing documents, claim was sought to be processed by OP-2, but, the NOC and form No.35 were not given by OP-1 and, therefore, claim was not processed. We shall refer here that as per this record, cause of action had arisen on 1.10.2011 and the instant complaint was preferred before this Forum on 10.9.2015 i.e. to say after about 3 years and 11 months whereas the limitation provided for the entertainment of a consumer dispute is 2 years from the date of cause of action and, therefore, per mandate of law, the consumer complaint ought to have been filed before 1.10.2013 while it was filed on 10.9.2015 i.e. to say it is barred by time by around 1 year and 11 months. Perusal of the record shows, no application for condonation of delay was preferred nor any such affidavit has been filed. Even the averments made in the consumer complaint do not show how the complainant brings up this consumer complaint within the time limit prescribed under the law.  As such, it is hopelessly time barred.
8.         Per record, there is contradiction in the averments made in the consumer complaint which have not been satisfactorily explained. Per allegations made in the consumer complaint, date of theft is 3.4.2009, as mentioned under paragraph No.5, and date of lodgment of the FIR No.56/2008 is 6.2.2009.  If these averments are taken then theft was committed later on and FIR was ante dated.  This ambiguity has not been properly explained and this was also as such highlighted in the written statement furnished on behalf of OP-2.
9.         Per record, FIR No.56/2008 was got registered on 6.2.2009 and it is also the case, insurer had asked for production of untraced report.  Except for production of copy of FIR (Annexure C-3), no other record produced to show, Amritsar Police had took up the investigation and failed to recover the stolen vehicle and nab the offenders.  What has been the result of the FIR has not been made known either to the insurer or to this Forum?  Now it remains a secret what has been result of the investigation. 
10.         Per assertions made, the financier i.e. OP-1 still owes more than Rs.11.00 lakhs from the complainant i.e. the amount of loan which was borrowed by the complainant.  In such like situation, the financier could not have given NOC.  Even as was contended lump sum claim of Rs.3.00 lakhs was offered to the financier, but, the financier was not in a position to give the NOC or transfer the vehicle.  How the vehicle was to be transferred is also ridiculous when it has not been highlighted what was the fate of the FIR.  Whether it was cancelled being found false or the stolen property was not recovered and the accused were not identified or say arrested?  Not only this, the required documents necessary for the purpose of processing of the claim neither produced before the insurer nor before this Forum.
11.         This consumer complaint was filed at Chandigarh for the reason main office of the insurer i.e. OP-2 is situated at Chandigarh and, therefore, this Forum was clothed with territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the instant consumer complaint preferred.
12.         In view of the above discussion and record referred hereinbefore, we are of the firm opinion, it has not been established that the OPs employed unfair trade practice and were in any way deficient in rendering service to the complainant.   We find no merit in the instant consumer complaint and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/06/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President