AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clause 9 of the loan agreement which has been extracted in the order of the State Commission, reads as under:
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 and all other usually covered by the insurance in this type of business for which the said vehicle (s)/equipment is being used or against such other risks as ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIM may require, the said vehicle (s)/equipment(s) is to be insured to the full replacement value th..... with an Insurance Company to be approved by ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIM under a Comprehensive Policy of insurance free from restrictions or excluding any risk exclusions or excess in the name of the Borrower(s) bearing an endorsement recording ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED's interest and stating that no payment is to be made to the Borrower(s) the policy unit ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED interest has been discharged and in default of the Borrower(s) so doing ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED may (though not bound to) insure as aforesaid and recover the cost from the Borrower(s) forthwith.The Borrower(s) hereby irrevocably appoints ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED as the agent of the Borrower(s) for the purpose of receiving all monies payable under the said policy and giving a discharge therefor.The Borrower(s) shall send to ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED the Original Policy when he receives the same and also the renewals thereof from time to time.
Borrower(s) shall punctually pay all premia payable under the said policy and send the receipts (or Photostat copies duly certified to be true copies) for such payments to ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED and do everything necessary to maintain the said policy/ies in full effect and not to do anything whereby the said policy/ies will or may be vitiated.
It is evident from a bare perusal of the above referred clause that the obligation to take insurance cover in respect of the financed vehicle rested with the complainant and the financer had only an option to take the insurance cover in the event the complainant failed to take the said cover. The aforesaid clause, in my opinion, does not obligate the financer to take the insurance cover. It only enabled him if he so desired, to take the insurance cover in order to safeguard the loan which it had extended for purchase of the vehicle.
On a careful perusal of the complaint, I find that even the complainant did not allege anywhere in the complaint that it was for the financer and not for him to take the insurance cover for the stolen vehicle. To the contrary, the plea taken by him in the Consumer Complaint was that he had paid the premium for taking the insurance cover to an agent of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, no deficiency on the part of the financer, in the matter of taking the insurance cover has even been alleged in the Consumer Complaint. Therefore, from whatever angle I may look at it, it cannot be said that the financer was deficient in rendering services to the complainant in the matter of taking insurance cover for the stolen vehicle.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the Revision Petition has been instituted by a company namely Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. whereas the loan agreement was with another company namely Orix Auto & Business Solution Ltd. The said plea is not open to the complainant, he himself having instituted the Consumer Complaint against Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. If the company namely Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. is a company different from the company which had financed the truck, the complainant ought to have impleaded the company which had financed the truck instead of impleading Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. In fact, this by itself, would be a good ground for dismissing the complaint against Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. if the vehicle was not financed by this company but was financed by another company.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of.