West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/81/2016

Asim Seikh, S/o Mukul Seikh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Achary

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

Smt. Saswati Saha - Member.

            The complainant has filed this petition of complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            The fact of this case in brief is that, the complainant is a resident of Village- Chandipur, P.O.- Tarapith, P.S.- Tarapith, Dist.- Birbhum with the jurisdiction of the Learned Commission.

            That the complainant purchased a vehicle being Model- Mahindra Bolero Plus BS3, being Registration No. WB 54R9400 with the financial assistance of the OP No. 1.

            That the complainant also purchased an insurance policy, being policy No. 3001/73269080/01B00, for the aforesaid vehicle, being Registration No. WB 54K9400 and thus the vehicle was/is covered under the aforesaid policy.

            That the value of the vehicle is Rs. 5,85,591/-. That the complainant paid Rs. 2,15,000/- as margin money and Rs. 17,00/- for others and the rest amount of Rs. 3,70,591/- was financed by the OP.

            That unfortunately the vehicle was theft on 18/01/2019. That the complainant lodged complaint before the  police station and thereafter the vehicle was traced out by the police of Bankura and it was released from Bankura Court on 19/02/2013, after 31 days. That the complainant got the vehicle in damaged condition. That the complainant informed the matter to the insurance company, OP No. 2, through the OP No. 1 for insurance claim and the OP No. 1 being the financer of the vehicle, assured the complainant that they would inform the insurance company in respect of the settlement of the insurance claim and the claim amount be adjusted with due amount.

           

 

That the vehicle was brought before the complainant in damaged condition and as per the instructions of OP No. 1 and 2, the complainant made repairing work of the vehicle and incurred expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately for restoration of the vehicle.

            That the OP No. 1 and 2 did not take any step, inspite of having knowledge in respect of the settlement of claim of the aforesaid damaged vehicle. That the Ops, ultimately radiated the claim of insurance on 18/06/2016.

            That the complainant could not ply the vehicle for a long period and for that reason he was in financial crisis. He could not repay loan amount within the due time, for his financial crisis.

            That the complainant claimed for exemption of interest and overdue charges, but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the other hand, they are claiming huge amount against the loan account.

            That the complainant is ready to pay loan if the insurance claim of Rs. 80,000/- be adjusted and no overdue interest be claimed by the OP No. 1 and he will pay the loan ammount with some easy instalments if the same be rescheduled.

            That the complainant runs the vehicle to maintain his livelihood and he has no other source of income except the income derived from the vehicle to be a self –employed person.

            That the aforesaid act of the OP is amounting to deficiency in service. That finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case praying following relief/reliefs:-

1. To pass an order directing the Ops No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- amount of insurance claim for the damaged vehicle.
2. To pass an order directing the OP No. 2 after adjusting the insurance claim to fix reschedule of the loan amount without any overdue charges.
3. To pass an order directing the Ops No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and other relief/reliefs.

            In view of the above stated facts and circumstances following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Is the case maintainable in the eye of law?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the complainant a consumer within the ambit of C.P Act 1986?
4. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

               Decision with reason.

All these issues are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

 

It is the case of the complainant that he is a resident of Tarapith, P.S. Tarapith, Dist. Birbhum and the OP No. 1, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial services Limited, Represented by Branch Manager- Suri Branch, Suri-Sova Bazar, P.O and P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum, Pin. 731101; OP No. 2, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Branch Manager- Suri Branch, P.O and P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum, Pin. 731101 under the jurisdiction of this Commission of Birbhum.

From the fact and circumstances of the case and the materials as well as evidence of record it is proved that this Commission has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.

From the materials of records it appears that the claim was repudiated by the OP No. 2 on 18/06/2016 and the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 19/07/2016 which is within the limitation period and cause of action arose on 18/06/2016.

Hence, the compliant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 and 2 and the OP members are the service providers as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint stated that he purchased the vehicle in question, of a sum of Rs. 5,85,591/- and the paid Rs. 2,15,000/- as margin money and Rs. 17,000/- for other. The raised amount i.e. of Rs. 3,70,591/- was financed by the OP.

It is the complainant’s case that the vehicle in question was theft on 18/01/2013 and the complainant inform the matter to Margram P.S. Case No. 8/2013, dated 18/01/2013 Under Section 379 IPC.

From the fact of the case and also from the evidence as adduced by the complainant it is found that the complainant released the vehicle from Bankura Court on 19/02/2013, in damaged condition and informed the OP No. 2/Insurance company through the OP No. 1 about the incident, and also claimed the repairing cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately.

From the unchallenged evidence on record, it is found that the OP No. 1 and 2 did not take any step in respect of the settlement of the claim and ultimately refused the claim on 18/06/2016.

            From the unchallenged evidence of the complainant it is also found  that for a long time the complainant could not be able to run the vehicle on road for which he sustained monitory loss and was in financial crisis. The complainant approached the financer, OP No. 1 for exemption of interest and overdue charges but in vain.

From the fact of the case and also from his unchallenged testimony the complainant stated that he is ready to pay the claimed amount if the insurance claim of Rs. 80,000/- would be adjusted without claiming any overdue interest as claimed by the finance OP No. 1 and also to reschedule the loan with some easy installments.

 

On a close scrutiny of the material of the record and the unchallenged evidence of the complainant this Commission doesn’t find any reason to disbelieve the complainant’s case.

In view of the discussion made above it is revealed that the complainant purchased the vehicle and the OP No. 1 is the financer of the same. The complainant also purchased the insurance policy on the payment of required premium from the OP No. 2.

It is also proved that the complainant incurred the expanses of Rs. 1,00,000/-, approximately to repair the same but the OP No. 2 did not settle the claim of the complainant, without having any cogent reason.

So, from the discussion made above it is palpably clear that the OP members did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant for settlement of the claim. Such conduct of the OP members amounts to deficiency in service and they would be liable to compensate the complainant for this deficiency in service.

Under such circumstances it is held by this Commission that the complainant could be able to proof his case beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

The case is properly stamped.

All this issues are this decided accordingly.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                    that the instant C.C. Case No. 81/2016 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP members.

The complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

The OP No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay as compensation to complainant jointly or severely to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-(Eighty thousand only) as insurance claim for damaged vehicle with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization.

The OP No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay to the complainant jointly or severally the litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand only).

The OP members are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation and litigation cost within 45 days from this date of order in default the complainant is entitled to get further interest @ 6% p.a. on the entire decreetal amount from the date of default till realization.

If the OP members failed to comply the decree within 45 days from this date of order the complainant is at liberty to execute the same through court.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.