BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 595 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 29.09.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 03.08.2011 |
Sita Ram son of Shri Ram Parsad aged 40 years resident of Village Jhansal, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt.Hanumangarh, at present Village Hindwan, Tehsil and District Hisar. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Behind Bikaner Sweet, Railway Road, Red Square Market, Hisar. 2. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-IV, SCO58, Sector 26-C, Chandigarh. 3. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Red Square Market, Hisar, District Hisar. 4. The Manager, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Corporation Bank Building, 11nd Floor, Gohana Chowk, G.T.Road, Panipat. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for complainant. Sh.Navin Kapur, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2. Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs No.3 and 4 PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Sita Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-39-T-0256 was insured with OP-2 for the period from 13.12.05 to 12.12.2006. The said vehicle was stolen from Mahavir Park, Bahadurgarh and as such FIR No.289 dated 20.11.2006(Annexure A-III) was registered in P.S. City Bahadurgarh. It is further the case of the complainant that the police failed to recover the said vehicle. The final report under section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted stating therein that the vehicle has not been recovered. The vehicle in question is financed with OP-4. The claim for Rs.3,73,150/- was submitted with OPs No.1 and 2. Consequently, the OPs No.1 and 2 conducted the investigation in respect of the theft of the vehicle. According to the complainant, he supplied the documents i.e. final report, bank statement and sale invoice of the vehicle as required by Harminder Singh & Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. It is the allegation of the complainant that M/s Harminder Singh & Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor stated in his report that the vehicle has been recovered and is lying at Aizol (Mizoram), whereas the vehicle has not been recovered despite best efforts made by the police. The said report is stated to be illegal and arbitrary. The complainant was asked vide letter dated 11.10.2010 by OP-1 to submit the status report of the traced vehicle. It is alleged that OPs No.1 and 2 have wrongly repudiated the claim, hence this complaint. 2. OPs No.1 and 2 filed written statement and took some preliminary objections viz-a-viz maintainability of the complaint, estoppel etc. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It is replied that the complainant has informed the insurer that the vehicle is not recoverable whereas in the final report under section 373 Cr.P.C., it is stated that the vehicle is lying at Aizol (Mizoram). According to replying OPs, the complainant informed the Ops after a gap of 7 days of the alleged theft of the vehicle in question, so, the claim is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. OPs No.3 and 4 filed the joint written statement and raised various preliminary objections. On merits, it is pleaded that no relief has been claimed against the replying Ops, so the complaint qua them is not maintainable. It is further replied that vide loan agreement No.505989 dated 30.09.06, the loan of Rs.2,30,000/- was granted to the complainant which was to be paid in 23 monthly installments @ Rs.11860/- per month. According to the replying OPs, the complainant has failed to repay the loan amount and therefore, he is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.5,66,646/- as on 5.1.2011. It has further been pleaded that in case the present case is allowed, the said amount may be ordered to be remitted to account of replying OPs. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. Now the only point which calls determination from this court is whether the vehicle in question has been recovered by the police. The answer to this is in negative. To prove the recovery of the vehicle, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 made reference to Annexure VII, Page-27 i.e. the report of the Harminder Singh & Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, wherein, it has been stated that as per the report of the P.S. City Bahadurgarh, the vehicle has been recovered and is lying at Aizol (Mizoram). It is further recorded in the said report that the final report was furnished by the insured. The insured also informed regarding the recovery of the vehicle. 6. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with OPs No.1 and 2 from 13.12.05 to 12.12.06 qua Annexure R-1 for sum assured of 3,73,150/- 7. The report of Harminder Singh & Co, Surveyor and Loss Assessor has not been supported by the affidavit of Harminder Singh. OPs No.1 and 2 have also failed to produce on record that the complainant at any point of time informed that the vehicle in question has been recovered by the police and is lying at Aizol (Mizoram). 8. Confronted with this type of situation, it can be safely concluded without hesitation that the OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to prove that the vehicle in question has been recovered and that the claim of the complainant is not payable. Hence, non-releasing of the claim by OPs No.1 and 2 despite the repeated requests of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 9. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay the claim of Rs.3,73,150/- after deducting the depreciation @ 10% to the OPs No.3 and 4 as the vehicle is hypothecated with them. OPs No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation within one month failing which OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to pay penal interest @ 9% on the entire amount from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 10. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 03.08.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
