LAWS(NCD)-2016-1-106

TVS FINANCE & SERVICES LTD. & ANR., JYALALSHMI ESTATE 29 HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI Vs. VIJAYKUMAR SHIVALINGAYYA KALLIMATH, H.NO

Decided On January 14, 2016
TVS FINANCE And SERVICES LTD. And ANR., JYALALSHMI ESTATE 29 HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI Appellant
V/S
VIJAYKUMAR SHIVALINGAYYA KALLIMATH, H.NO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the TVS Finance & Services Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 12.12.2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short 'the State Commission'), wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 08.02.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum, (in short 'the District Forum') was dismissed and order of the District Forum was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners financed a motorcycle to the respondent/complainant in the year 2004 and as alleged by the respondent, the petitioner took three years premium for insurance of the vehicle. The respondent's claim is that he deposited the premium from his own pocket from the date 20.8.2004 to 19.8.2005 and thereafter it was to be deposited with the Insurance Company by the financer/petitioner, who had already taken three years' premium. The petitioner deposited premium for the period 20.8.2005 to 19.08.2006 and 20.8.2006 to 19.8.2007. The petitioner did not pay the premium for the third year period in time. He later paid the premium and the vehicle was insured for the period 26.10.2007 to 25.10.2008. Meanwhile, the vehicle met with an accident on 22.10.2007 and one person died in the accident. The legal heirs of the deceased filed Motor Vehicle Claim (M.V.C.), which awarded Rs.2,75,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. As the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, this amount was paid by the respondent/complainant. He claimed deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner who was to deposit insurance premium in time, but failed to do so. The District Forum, vide its order dated 08.02.2011 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2011.