<br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Raja Mohammed against three Respondents- (1) National Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai, (2) Sriram Transport Finance Investments, Br. Office Raichur, and (3) National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> The complainant is the registered owner of lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2234 he had purchased the said lorry under loan agreement through Respondent No-2 Sriram Transport Finance Investments. The said lorry was insured with Respondent No-1 for the period from 25-11-04 to 24-11-05 under policy No. 04/6323136. The complainant requested Respondent NO-2 to obtain insurance policy from branch Office Raichur but Respondent NO-1 explained that the National Insurance Company Ltd., is one and the same through-out India. The Respondents 1 & 2 assured that in case of accident happens to the lorry, Respondent No- 1 & 2 will take care and compensation amount will be released without any delay.<br /> <br /> On 26-03-05 the complainant’s lorry met with an accident at Vokrani cross on Manvi-Raichur Road and damages were caused to the said lorry. The accident was informed to the Respondents. The accident was also informed to the Sirwar Police by the complainant who visited the spot and conducted spot panchanama. The surveyor of the Respondent No-1 surveyed the damages by inspecting the vehicle. Thereafter complainant shifted his vehicle to the garage for repairs. <br /> <br /> The complainant approximately spent about Rs. 6,41,000/- for the repair of lorry. After the repair of the lorry again Respondents conducted survey by the Surveyor and also conducted final survey and suggested the complainant to submit his claim with bills and required documents to the Respondents. Accordingly the complainant submitted all the relevant bills, expenditure to all the Respondents along with documents, bills etc., Nearly about one year the complainant is visiting the Respondents office for settlement of the claim.<br /> <br /> It is submitted that on 18-09-06 the Respondent NO-2 intimated the complainant that the Respondents settled the claim only for Rs. 3,85,000/- instead of Rs. 6,41,000/-. The copy of the said letter is enclosed for perusal. After the receipt of the said letter the complainant was shocked and approached the Respondent No- 1 to 3 and requested for reasonable compensation for the damages caused to the lorry. Later on after convincing, the Respondents 1 to 3 have assured the complainant to reconsider and promise to settle the claim as per the bills submitted by the complainant but Respondents not at all settled his claim even after so many requests. Thus all the Respondents are intentionally prolonging the matter with an intention to dupe the amount of compensation of the complainant.<br /> <br /> The Respondents are all responsible persons to settle the matter but they are not showing any interest for settlement of the claim. Therefore it clearly shows negligence on the part of the Respondents and also deficiency in service by the Respondents. After waiting long-time the complainant has got issued legal notice to the Respondents through his counsel for negligent act and deficiency in service by the Respondents. The complainant is suffering from mental torture and agony incurring loss from the earnings of damaged vehicle. The complainant is also loosing interest on the payment amount of Rs. 6,41,000/- as per expenses incurred by him. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for awarding total compensation of Rs. Ten Lakhs against the Respondents 1 to 3 with interest and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. In response to service of notice, Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsels. Respondent No-1 & 3- National Company Ltd., have filed common written statement whereas Respondent No-2 has filed its own written version. In the written version, Respondent NO-1 & 3 have contended that the Liability of these Respondents to pay damages if any is subject to the production of valid documents of vehicle, driving licence of the driver, preliminary survey report, final survey report, original Insurance Policy and No Objection Certificate from Respondent No-2 etc., The complainant is guilty of not producing the required documents for processing the claim. In-spite of several reminders, the complainant has not produced the required documents for settling his claim. Instead of producing those documents the complainant with a malafide intention has approached this Forum. The complainant has failed to perform his part of the obligation and the complainant by his lethargic attitude is solely responsible for the delay in processing the claim. Hence the complaint is premature and without jurisdiction deserves to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by these Respondents and is under process for want of documents and No Objection Certificate from the Respondent No-2. As such there is no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant is guilty of not producing the relevant documents in-spite of several reminders and there is no deficiency of service and no cause of action. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents 1 & 3 have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The Respondent No-2 Sriram Transport Finance Investments Ltd., in written statement has contended that the complaint is vague without mentioning particulars of information and correspondence made by the complainant with this Respondent. The complainant himself approached this Respondent for loan by hypothecation of his lorry No. KA-36/2234 and has executed hypothecation forms and undertaken to repay the loan without fail as per Hypothecation Agreement No. RA-175548/00 on 10-12-04. After availing the loan the complainant has to pay monthly installments of Rs. 10,025/- which he failed to repay with effect from 10-10-05 to till date. This is purely violation of all the conditions stipulated in the hypothecation agreement. The complainant is due for a sum of Rs. 3,85,080/- plus over-due interest. All these fact shows negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the complainant himself and not by this Respondent. At no point of time this Respondent insisted to insurer with the first Respondent. It is needless to say that Respondent NO- 1 & 3 are one and the same governed by the same rules and regulations. This Respondent is in no way concerned to the complainant. There is every chance to initiate Criminal and Civil cases against the complainant for violation of hypothecation agreement, failure in repayment of loan installments and breach of trust. The complainant has falsely implicated this Respondent in this case. The vehicle in-question is insured with Respondent NO-1 only, if the complainant has not agreed for settlement of his claim the role of this Respondent does not arise. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent NO-2 has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and has got marked (5) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-5. In-rebuttal the Administrative Officer of Respondent No-1 Company has filed his sworn-affidavit as examination-in-chief for Respondent NO- 1 & 3 and got marked (6) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-6. On behalf of Respondent NO-2 its Branch Manager has filed sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief and closed its side.<br /> <br /> 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. Heard reply arguments by the learned counsel for respective Respondents. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service in not settling his claim of insurance regarding damage caused to his vehicle, as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought <br /> for?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 7. There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner and R.C. Holder of the vehicle- lorry bearing Registration No. KA-36/2234 and that it was insured with Respondent NO-1 & 3 National Insurance Company Ltd., and that the said vehicle was purchased by complainant by raising loan from Respondent NO-2 under the hypothecation agreement. Admittedly the Respondents 1 & 3 have not repudiated the claim of the complainant. According to the complainant, in-spite of several correspondence and requests made with Respondents his claim was not settled. But according to the Insurance Company (Respondent No 1 & 3), in-spite of several reminders issued to him the complainant failed to produce required documents for processing his claim and without complying the reminder letters, the complainant has approached this Forum and so the complaint is premature one. <br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has produced (5) documents namely: Attested copy of R.C. Book at Ex.P-1. Copy of Panchanama at Ex.P-2. Copy of letter issued by Respondent NO-2 (Sriram Transport Finance Investments Ltd.,) to the complainant at Ex.P-3. Office copy of Legal notice at Ex.P-4 and Postal acknowledgements at Ex.P-5. In Ex.P-1 RC Book, we find endorsement by RTO Authorities regarding hypothecation of the vehicle in-question with Respondent NO-2 Sriram Transport Finance Investments. The Legal notice is at Ex.P-4 issued by the complainant to Respondents 1 & 2 is dt. 20-09-06. In para-2 of the Legal notice it is stated that the claim petition has already been submitted before Insurance Company, but so far they have not received any result from Insurance Company and thereby the complainant put to loss of financial worries and sought for settlement of the claim within (7) days from the date of receipt of this notice or else he will take necessary legal action. <br /> <br /> 9. The Respondents have produced (6) documents and out of which Ex.R.1 and Ex.R-2 are the letters addressed by Respondent No- 1 & 3 to the complainant. Out of these two letter Ex.R-1 is the letter dt. 30-10-06 addressed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., ( 1 & 3 ) to the complainant- Raja Mohammed. This letter being latest one is material for our purpose reads as under:<br /> Sir,<br /> Re: Own damage claim preferred by you for your <br /> vehicle No. KA-36/2234 which met with an <br /> accident on 26-03-2005.<br /> ******<br /> On scrutiny of the documents submitted to us, it is observed that we require the following details/documents for further processing of the claim:<br /> 1. R.C. Extract<br /> 2. Permit Extract<br /> 3. DL Extract<br /> 4. Original Keys<br /> 5. Original Policy<br /> 6. Consent Letter for Rs. 2,81,000/-<br /> 7. In the event of settlement of claim, please advise us to whom the claim amount is payable. If it is payable to the financier, send us the enclosed No Objection Letter duly filled in and signed. Otherwise, if it is payable to yourself send us the enclosed discharge voucher duly signed along with bank details viz., bank name, address, type of account and account number.<br /> Only on receiving the above details, we will be in a position to further process the claim.<br /> IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE THE ABOVE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS WITHIN IN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, THE CLAIM WILL BE TREATED AS CLOSED.<br /> Thanking you,<br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Assistant Manager,<br /> c.c.:Mr. Arvind Patil, Advocate- for information.<br /> c.c.:SIL –for information.<br /> <br /> Ex.R-4 is Loan Statement and Ex.R-5 is Hypothecation Deed. It shows that the vehicle in-question is hypothecated with Respondent NO-2 Finance Company. Ex.R-6 is earlier letter dt. 06-12-05 through which the Respondent Insurance company have asked the complainant has produced certain documents which are required for processing his claim. Through Ex.R-1 again the complainant was called-upon to produce the said required documents within (15) days from the date of receipt of this letter or else his claim will be treated as closed. Admittedly after issuing legal notice dt. 20-09-96 vide Ex.P-4 the complainant has received the reminder letter at Ex.R-1, from the Respondents 1 & 3. The complainant has not whispered a single word to whether he has produced required documents as asked by Respondent No- 1 & 3 in the reminder letter. Even he has not produced any correspondence made by him to the Respondents in-response to reminder letter dt. 30-10-06 vide Ex.R-1. So this in-turn shows that the complainant without complying the requirements as stated in the reminder letter of the Respondents vide Ex.R-1, has approached this Forum. If this is so how can there be deficiency of service by the Respondents and how can there be any cause of action for this complaint, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 & 3. Further in the reminder letter at Ex.R-1, the complainant has been specifically asked to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Respondent NO-2 in-order to claim the vehicle damages, since the vehicle has been hypothecated with Respondent No-2. Even the complainant has not whispered a single word regarding compliance of letter by the Respondent at Ex.R-1. Under these circumstances we are at a loss to know as to how there can be deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence the complaint being premature one deserves to be dismissed on this score only holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents. Hence this point is answered in the negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 10. In view of our finding on Point NO-1, holding the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents. So the complainant is liable to be dismissed. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-04-07)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampannagouda, <br /> Member<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> On leave. <br /> Smt.Kavita Patil, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br />