SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Orix Auto Infrastructures Services Ltd. and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Birju Meena and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.3809 of 2014 and 411 of 2015
Decided on 25.7.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner in RP/3809/2014:Ms. Apoorva Saxena, Advocate
For the Petitioner in RP/411/2015:Mr. V.S. Chopra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 in RP/3809/2014:Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 in RP/3809/2014:Mr. V.S. Chopra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 in RP/411/2015:Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 in RP/411/2015:Ms. Apoorva Saxena, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
No deficiency on the part of the financer, in the matter of taking the insurance cover has even been alleged in the Consumer Complaint.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Complainant purchased Vehicle/Truck by giving cash of Rs.7,51,000/- vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant—Loan was taken by the complainant from a company—Truck was not insured after 09.05.2007—Case of the complainant - truck as snatched from his driver on 27.06.2007—Claim was lodged by him with United India Insurance Company Ltd.—Claim was rejected on the ground that the truck was not insured with the said Company—Complainant approached the concerned District Forum—District Forum dismissed the complaint—Complainant approached the concerned State Commission—Section 19—State Commission directed that both the parties shall burden loss equally—NCDRC set aside the impugned order—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 1 and 2)

Result: Revision petition disposed off.

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainant/respondent no.1 namely Birju Meena, as per his own averment made in the Consumer Complaint, purchased a truck bearing registration no. RJ-25G-1278 from one Virender Kumar by giving cash of Rs.7,51,000/-. The vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant in August 2006. A loan was taken by the complainant from a company namely Orix Auto & Business Solution Ltd. for purchase of the said truck. The vehicle was already registered in the name of the truck owner at the time it was purchased by the complainant, the insurance being valid upto 09.05.2007. The truck however, was not got insured after 09.05.2007. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid truck as snatched from his driver on 27.06.2007. A claim was lodged by him with United India Insurance Company Ltd. which had insured the truck after 09.05.2007. The claim however, was rejected on the ground that the truck was not insured with the said Company. The complainant thereafter, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

2. The complaint was instituted against Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd., petitioner in RP No.3809 of 2014 and Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Both the OPs in the complaint, resisted the complaint. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. took the stand that the vehicle was not got insured after 09.05.2007 and therefore, they were not liable to re-imburse the complainant. The petitioner in RP No.3809 of 2014 also contested the Consumer Complaint alleging therein that it was the responsibility of OP No.2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. to provide insurance since the complainant had stated that he had deposited the premium of insurance.

3. The District Forum, having dismissed the complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 08.07.2014, the State Commission directed that both the parties shall burden loss equally and accordingly,

50% IDV should be borne by the respondents. This, according to the learned counsel for the insurer and the complainant, was a mistake since the State Commission wanted that the complainant and the financer should bear 50% each of the loss.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. as well as United India Insurance Company Ltd. are before this Commission.

5. Though it has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant had paid cash premium to the agent of the insurer for taking insurance cover in respect of the stolen truck for the period from 23.08.2006 to 09.05.2007 and from 10.05.2007 to 09.05.2008, and a cover note for the period from 23.08.2006 to 09.05.2007 was also issued to the complainant, there is no evidence of any premium for the period from 10.05.2007 to 09.05.2008 having actually been taken from the complainant either by United India Insurance Company Ltd. or by any of its agent. No receipt of payment of any premium by the complainant either to United India Insurance Company Ltd. or to any of its agent was produced. Therefore, the said company was under no obligation to insure the vehicle after 09.05.2007, it having not received the requisite premium. Hence, the direction of the State Commission to the insurer to bear 50% of the loss cannot be sustained, though the said direction is otherwise stated to be a mistake on the part of the State Commission, which according to the learned counsel for the complainant, intended that 50% of the loss should be borne by the complainant and remaining 50% by the financer.

6. Clause 9 of the loan agreement which has been extracted in the order of the State Commission, reads as under:

1. Simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement the Borrower(s) shall insure the vehicle(s) equipment(s) and keep same insured throughout the term of this Agreement comprehensively against all losses or damages including by accident, fire, theft an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top