Sri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the complaint are that complainants purchased a Tata Vehicle being Model LDT 2518 bearing registration No.WB-15B/5233, Engine No.B591803111 D84002273 and chassis No. Mat 448030B7D17256 after obtaining loan from CITICORP Finance India Ltd and incurred huge amount to run the vehicle. That on 23-03-2012 at night the loaded insured vehicle was parked beside a hotel at Kolaghat and the said vehicle was missing. Possible searches were made but vehicle remains untraced. An FIR was lodged over the incident to Kolaghat P.S. Ultimately, Police submitted Final Report before the Ld. CJM, Purba Medinipur. Complainants intimated about the theft of the insured vehicle to the OPs and the OPs asked the complainants to submit require documents to settle the claim. Complainants submitted require documents to the OP1 through Advocate but the OPs did not settle the claim. Finding no other alternative, the complainants sent legal notice dated 09-09-2014 to the OPs requesting to release the claim amount but such notice was unattended. Hence, the complaint.
The OPs have contested the case by filing a joint written version contending, inter alia, that the complainants have no cause of action to bring the case and the consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. The specific case of the OPs is that for the purpose of processing of the insurance claim the insured had sent its authorized surveyor for enquiring the claim in connection with the insured vehicle but during claim process complainants did not submit necessary documents in spite of letter dated 06-01-2013, 11-01-2013 and 31-01-2013. Ultimately, the OPs had no option but to treat the claim “No claim”. The complainants woke up on 16-01-2014 and sent a letter through Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate coupled with few documents. Such photocopies of documents did not serve the purpose of settle the claim. The act of the complainants itself lackadaisical and the complainants themselves have caused delay in processing the claim. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the light of above pleadings the following points necessarily came up for determination.
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainants?
- Whether the OPs have repudiated the claim wrongfully or illegally?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Points No.1 to 3 :
All the points are taken up together for the sake up convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties also filed Brief Notes of Arguments.
Fact remains that complainants obtained an insurance coverage of their vehicle bearing registration No.WB-15B/52334 from the OP2 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. and the said policy was valid for the period from 20-09-2011 to 19-09-2012. It is also true that the insured vehicle was purchased after obtaining loan from CITICORP Finance India Ltd. and the said financer has a lien upon the insured vehicle. Admittedly, the insured vehicle was missing on 23-03-2012 at night and an FIR being Kolaghat P.S. Case No.77 of 2012 u/s.379 of I.P.C. was initiated against unknown persons. Ultimately, I.O. submitted Final Report.
The complainants have also given a letter to the Insurer to settle the claim. However, no settlement was arrived at and the claim is not settled and repudiation letter was issued on the ground of non-submission of require documents. Complainants claimed that they sent photocopies of original documents including photocopy of the original key of the insured vehicle to the OP1 under registered post with A.D. Both parties blaming each other with regard to furnishing of require documents relating to claim. No doubt the miscreants stole the insured vehicle when the driver and Khalashi had been to line hotel to taking their diner. The complainants are the owners of the insured vehicle, they have no fault. The arbitration proceedings between the financer and the owners, relating to recovery of the loan amount, can in anyway, negate the rights of the insured against the insurance company. The complainants have stated in the consumer complaint that the insured vehicle bearing registration No.WB 15B/5293 was financed by the CITICORP Finance India Ltd. but the said financer has not been made a party to the instant consumer complaint, even knowing the fact that CITICORP Finance India Ltd. has a lien upon the insured vehicle and an arbitration award has been passed against them. It is true that the complainants filed a Misc. Appeal before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, which is still pending for disposal. Insured Vehicle is hypothecated with the Finance Company, under agreement Finance Company is owner of the insured vehicle and complainants being the purchasers are only hirer who would acquire ownership right after liquidating the entire loan amount. The intention of the complainants appears to be to obtain favourable orders without implicating the Finance Company as party to the complaint. As such, the consumer case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
Based on the above discussion, the case is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus, all the points under determination are disposed of.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
Both parties to bear their costs relating to litigation.
