1. This is a petition filed U/S 35 of the consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs. The petition is filed by Smti Ranjita Kaur and one another (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners/complainants) against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. and one another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) praying for recovery of money and other relief.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that the husband and father of the complainants, namely, Babu Singh Monmohan Singh who expired on 23/01/2013, during his life time purchased a vehicle Bolero Camper 4X4 being Registration No.AS-02/E-9727 being financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. having a Branch Office at R.D. Motors Building (First Floor) Office of the Company at Khutikatia. P.O.-Nagaon, Dist- Nagaon, Assam on an amount of Rs.4,59,000.00(Rupees Four Lakh and Fifty Nine Thousand) only on last 05/10/2012 repayable on 487 installment @ Rs.8.5% interest per annum and the husband/father of the complainants, namely, Late Babu Singh @ Monmohan Singh repaid three installment along with interest into the account of the Finance Company, namely, the opposite parties. Further case of the complainants are that their deceased husband/father, namely, Late Babu Singh @ Monmohan Singh also availed the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme for the said vehicle for 1 year under the terms and condition of the company and also paid the premium of Rs.2,279.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy nine) only and accordingly on the event of the death of loanee within one year from the date of the finance, the entire loan amount will have to be liquidated under the said scheme. The complainants stated that the death of their husband/father having been occurred on last 23/01/2013, the opposite parties are bound to liquidate the loan amount financed by them to the deceased husband/ father of them but in spite of their repeated requests, the opposite parties avoid to settle their claim and denied to extend the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme to these complainants on the vague plea that the loan was extended to M/S Babu Singh and not to Mr. Babu Singh and having no alternative, though the complainants send pleader’s notice but the opposite parties did not response and such act on the part of the opposite parties caused mental pain and agony to the complainants and caused them to suffer financial loss and hardship which amount to deficiency in service on their parts. Hence, this complaint is before this Commission praying for the relief.
3. The opposite parties filed their written version denying all the claim of the petitioners. By their written version, the opposite parties took the plea that the complainants have no cause of action to file this petition before this Commission, that the petition does not attract the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, that the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and the petition is barred by the law of the limitation. By their written version, the opposite parties stated that there is no negligence, delay or deficiency of service on their part. They further submitted that upon the request of the husband/father of the complainants for availing financial assistance to purchase a vehicle and on being satisfied, they provided a loan of Rs.4,59,000.00 to M/S Babu Singh with agreement value (intending interest) to be repaid Rs.6,15,000.00 by the loanee. The opposite parties further stated that the husband/father of the complainants also approached to avail the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme but the said scheme covers the loan extended to the borrower who is invidual but not to the borrower who is a company and in the instant case, the deceased Babu Singh being the sole proprietor of M/S Babu Singh had provided all the documents in the name of M/S Babu Singh and as such, the presents complainants are not entitled to the benefit M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme. Further plea of the answering opposite parties is that on last 13th August, 2013, the complainant and one Mr. Pradip Singh paid the outstanding dues to settle the loan amount and accordingly, the loan account was closed and NOC vide No.1255581 was issued on 20/08/2013 but the complainants have suppressed such material facts and with malafide intention have filed this petition before this commission. Hence, answering opposite parties pray from dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On pleading of parties the following points came out for decision for adjudication of the case.
- Whether the opposite parties being the financer of the vehicle “Bolero Camper 4X4 being Registration No.AS-02/E-9727 purchased by the husband/father of the complainants denied to extend the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme without having justified ground and such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service ?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for?
6. The complainant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and one Pradip Singh as P.W.2 and also exhibited several documents in support of their claim. Opposite parties have not examined any witness on their own and also did not cross examine the P.W.s.
7. After closing the evidence of both side, written argument received on behalf of the complainant while opposite parties did not advance any argument on their behalf. Hence, this Commission proceed to deliver the judgment in the case on the basis of materials available in the record as well as argument for the complainants side.
8. Decision and reasons thereof:-
9. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (ii) are taken jointly for discussion and decision:-
The claim of the complainants are that their deceased husband/ father, namely, Late Babu Singh @ Monmohan Sing obtained a financial loan from the opposite parties for purchasing a Bolero Camper 4X4 being Registration No.AS-02/E-972 and also paid three premium for obtaining the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme but after the death of the borrower, namely, Babu Singh @ Monmohan Singh, the opposite parties illegally denied to extend the said benefit to the complainants on vague ground In support of their claim, the petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1. and another Pradip Singh as P.W.2. In her evidence in affidavit the P.W.1 deposed that her husband late Babu Singh @ Monmohan singh who expired on 23/01/2013, during his life time purchased a vehicle “Bolero Camper 4X4 being Registration No.AS-02/E-9727 being financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. having a branch Office at R.D. Motors Building( First Floor)Office of the Company at Khutikatia. P.O.-Nagaon, Dist- Nagaon, Assam on an amount of Rs.4,59,000.00(Rupees Four Lakh and Fifty Nine Thousand)only on last 05/10/2012 repayable on 487 installment @ Rs.8.5% interest per Annum and the husband/father of the complainants, namely, Late Babu Singh @ Monmohan Singh repaid three installment along with interest into the account of the Finance Company, namely, the opposite parties. Further case of the complainants is that their deceased husband/father, namely, Late Babu Singh @ Monmohan Singh also availed the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme for the said vehicle for 1 year under the terms and condition of the company and also paid the premium of Rs.2279.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and seventy nine) only and accordingly on the event of the death of loanee within one year from the date of the finance, the entire loan amount will have to be liquidated under the said scheme. The P.W.1 also deposed that the death of her husband having been occurred on last 23/01/2013, the opposite parties are bound to liquidate the loan amount financed by them to her deceased husband but in spite of repeated requests, the opposite parties avoided to settle their claim and denied to extend the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme to the complainants on the vague plea that the loan was extended to M/S Babu Singh and not to Mr. Babu Singh and having no alternative, though the complainants send pleader’s notice but the opposite parties did not response and such act on the part of the opposite parties caused mental pain and agony to the complainants and caused them to suffer financial loss and hardship which amounts to deficiency in service on their parts and having no alternative, though the complainants send pleader’s notice but the opposite party did not response and such act on the part of the opposite parties caused mental pain and agony to the complainants and caused them to suffer financial loss and hardship which amounts to deficiency in service on their parts). P.W.2-Pradip Singh supports the evidence of P.W.1 in all material particulars.
The opposite parties neither cross examined the P.Ws nor adduced any evidence in their support of their written version.
The opposite parties while filing their written version submitted that upon the request of the husband/father of the complainants for availing financial assistance to purchase a vehicle and on being satisfied, they provided a loan of Rs.4,59,000.00 to M/S Babu Singh with agreement value (intending interest) to be repaid Rs.6,15,000.00 by the loanee. The opposite parties further stated that the husband/father of the complainants also approached to avail the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme but the said scheme covers the loan extended to the borrower who is invidual but not to the borrower who is a company and in the instant case, the deceased Babu Singh being the sole proprietor of M/S Babu Singh had provided all the documents in the name of M/S Babu Singh and as such, the presents complainants are not entitled to the benefit M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme. The opposite parties neither cross examined the P.WS. nor adduced any evidence in support of their pleas. Hon’ble Apex Court in many judicial pronouncements specifically stated that mere filing of written statement is not sufficient unless supported by evidence. The admitted position is also that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,59,000.00 from opposite parties and also availed the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme for the said vehicle for 1 year under the terms and condition of the company by paying the premium of Rs.2,279.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine) only and hence, the death of loanee, namely, Babu Singh @Monmohan Singh being happened within one year from the date of the finance, the entire loan amount is required to be liquidated under the said scheme. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to extend the benefit of M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme to the complainants and by not doing so, they caused financial loss and mental harassment to the complainants for which they are liable to compensate the complaints.
In view of above observation we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully established that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in affirmative and go in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R
10. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioners have succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioners U/S 35 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite parties to extend the benefit of the M.L.S.(Mahendra Loan Suraksha) Scheme for the vehicle “Bolero Camper 4X4 being Registration No.AS-02/E-9727 purchased by the husband/father of the complainants as per terms and condition of the policy along with a compensation of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand)only with interest @ 12% per annum from today till realization to be paid to the complaints.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 22nd Day of March 2023.
