JAGDISH KAINTHLA Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ COMPANY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved with the order dated 29.12.2015 of the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H.P., Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission'), present revision petition has been filed by Jagdish Kainthla, Complainant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that appellant purchased a truck bearing registration No. HP-07B-2273 in Sept. 2007, which was financed by Tata Finance against loan contract bearing No. 500144718. Total finance amount was Rs. 7,50,000 against which the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,67,000 as finance charges and a sum of Rs. 48,600 as insurance provision for next three years to be repaid in 48 EMIs of Rs. 22,200 each. The truck was insured by Respondent No. 1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. for a total sum of Rs. 8,41,494 and insurance was valid from 9.8.2008 to 8.8.2009 vide policy No. OG-09-1901-1803-00004589. Full and final settlement through an agreement was achieved between petitioner and Respondent No. 1. The amount of settlement Rs. 4,75,000 was not deposited with the petitioner but directly deposited with Tata Motors by Bajaj Allianz. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint bearing complaint No. 319/2009 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the 'District Forum'). District Forum vide order dated 7.9.2015 dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner vide its order dated, with the finding that issues raised in the complaint pertain to the settlement of accounts and disputed facts for adjudication of which, Civil Court alone is competent.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by its order dated 29.12.2015.