BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.110/2014 in C.C.No.1058/2011, District Forum-III, Hyderabad.

Between:

1. M/s Bajaj Finance Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Old Mumbai, Pune Highway,

Akurdi, Pune 411 035.

1. M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Suppliers

Square, III floor, 6-3-885/7, Somajiguda

Circle, Hyderabad-82.                                                              ..Appellants/

                                                                        Opp. parties 1 and 2

And

1. M/s Shrey Electro Sales Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Vikas Duggar

O/o.5-2-283 & 284, Hyderbasti,

1. Vikas Kumar Duggar

S/o.B.R.Duggar, aged 38 years,

Occ:Business, R/o.5-2-283 & 284

Hyderbasti, Secunderabad-3.                                                        Respondents/

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s Valluri Mohan Srinivas

Counsel for the Respondents: M/s K.Mohan

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.                                                                          AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)

***

        M/s Bajaj Finance Limited represented by its Managing Director and its Branch Manager at Hyderabad are the appellants and this appeal is directed against the orders made on 06-11-2013 made in C.C.No.1058/2011 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant therein.

        The brief facts are that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.21,00,518/- on 10-3-2009 for its business purpose from the opposite parties and the said loan amount was to be repaid in 12 equated monthly instalments.  As per the terms of the said loan, an amount of Rs.1,00,518/- was payable towards insurance premium which was refundable after completion of repayment of the loan.  The complainant has paid the entire loan amount within the stipulated period of 12 months and requested the opposite parties for refund of the insurance premium i.e. Rs.1,00,518/- with additional 40% after repayment of the loan as the loan was cleared.  However, the same was postponed by the opposite parties on some pretext or the other and in those circumstances, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed the said complaint.

        On notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and contested the matter on various grounds.  However, the District Forum has negated the said contentions and allowed the complaint purely on the ground that the condition in the loan sanction letter clearly assume that the amount of premium which was paid shall be paid back after completing the tenure.  Accordingly directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,518/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

        The same was questioned by the opposite parties in this appeal.

        According to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, the tenure does not mean the period of loan amount but it means three years as provided for under the terms and conditions.  According to him, the District Forum ought not to have taken the said period as the loan period and in those circumstances the said order passed by the District Forum is not justified.

        We are unable to appreciate the said contention.  Apparently the loan was sanctioned for a period of one year and a condition precedent is that an insurance policy also has to be taken at the time when the loan was sanctioned and accordingly the policy was taken.  When once the loan amount is paid, in our considered view, the entire transaction comes to an end and the tenure which was included in the loan sanction letter shall also come to an end on payment of the last instalment.  Further the learned counsel for the appellant except relying on one of the conditions in the terms and the conditions appended to the policy, has not placed any material evidence either before the District Forum or before us to establish that the policy amount can be refunded only after a period of three years but not before.  In those circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the District Forum is justified in allowing the said complaint filed by the complainant.

        Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                     Dt.21-8-2014