DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.579 of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  31.05.2018                                             Date of decision   :  06.02.2019

Meena Bansal wife of Vishesh Kumar son of Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, resident of HIG 298, Sector 71, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36/37, Sector 17-A. Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                                            ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri S.K. Karwal, counsel for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                Complainant purchased Innova Car from Globe Toyota Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on 26.10.2013 for consideration of Rs.12,35,186/- after getting this vehicle financed from Corporation Bank, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. It was also got insured by paying premium of Rs.31,868/- on 26.10.2013. However, this car stood stolen during night between 15.01.2014 and 16.01.2014, when the same was lying parked outside house of complainant. Though FIR was registered, but car remained untraced. Complainant submitted documents alongwith keys of the car with OP on 08.08.2014.  Intimation regarding theft of car was submitted with OP vide letter dated 04.09.2014. However, claim of complainant has not been settled, despite visit to OP office numerous times. Thereafter, complainant filed an application before Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), UT Chandigarh, who dismissed the same vide orders dated 21.03.2016. Aggrieved against those orders, complainant preferred CWP No.18622 of 2017 before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but the same was withdrawn vide orders dated 21.08.2017. It is claimed that at the time of withdrawal of CWP, Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow complainant to raise pleas before this Forum. This complaint filed for seeking direction to OP to pay claim of Rs.12,35,186/- with interest.

2.             Perusal of copy of order dated 21.03.2016 passed in Application No.17/2015 by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh in case titled as Meena Bansal Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reveals that the application filed by present complainant for release of insurance amount of vehicle in question regarding theft in question was dismissed, after finding no merits therein. Discussion regarding appointment of investigator by OP Company regarding stolen vehicle in question made in this order passed by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh. OP company asked for submission of registration certificate of the vehicle, but complainant failed to desposit the same with OP, due to which claim was rejected by invoking Sections 39 and 43 of Motor Vehicles Act, is a fact borne from Page-4 of the order passed by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh. It was held by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh that temporary registration certificate issued in favour of complainant expired on 15.11.2013 and theft took place on night intervening between 15/16.01.2014 when complainant was not having registration certificate. In view of this, it was found that there is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy contract and that is why in view of law laid down in case of Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., decided on 04.09.2014 in Civil Appeal No.8463 of 2014 as cited in 2014 STPL (Web.) 567 SC, complainant was held ineligible to stake claim from the insurance company. So it is obvious that Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh has decided the case on merits and now complaint before this Forum has been filed after dismissal of application by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh.

3.       That order of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh was challenged before Hon’ble High Court through CWP No.18622 of 2017 decided on 21.08.2017. Through these orders of 21.08.2017, writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to complainant to raise pleas before the Forum by observing that order passed by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh would not stand in his way because he was agitating before alternative Forum. If such plea raised, then same will be considered as per law, as observed by Hon’ble High Court. Grounds for challenge of orders of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh not specified anywhere in the complaint and as such no specific plea taken as to how orders passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh are not to be taken into consideration by this Forum. Hon’ble High Court allowed complainant to raise plea as if the order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh will not stand in the way of complainant in filing complaint before this Forum. So specific plea should have been taken for mentioning as to how order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh is not binding or does not come in the way of complainant in filing this complaint. Non taking of specific plea shows as if the matter which has already been decided by competent Forum i.e. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh has been re-agitated without any basis.

4.             In case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Jalour Singh & others, AIR 2008 SC (1209), it has been held that the award passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) relating to a claim arising out of Motor Vehicles Act can be challenged by filing Writ Petition under
Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India. In view of that decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has to be held that remedy available with complainant is to challenge the order of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh on some legal grounds mentioned in Sections 20 or 21 of Legal Services Authority Act, but those grounds not at all mentioned or taken in this complaint and as such virtually complaint has been filed without cause of action. Section 21 (1) of Legal Services Authority Act provides that every award of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) shall be deemed to be decree of a civil court or as the case may be, or of any other court and the same will be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute. When such is the legal position contained in Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act, then in absence of taking of specific plea for challenging the orders of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh, this  complaint can be said to be filed without basis. Being so, complaint deserves to be returned to complainant with observation that complainant, if advised may avail remedy before appropriate Forum.

5.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint ordered to be returned to complainant with observation that the complainant, if advised may avail remedy before the appropriate Forum. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

February 06, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member