Date of filing:- 19/06/2023.
Date of Order:-30/04/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 69 of 2023.
Jeetu Rout, S/o Late Durlabha Rout, aged about 32(thirty two) years, Occupation Business, R/o Khajurtikra, W. No.8(eight), Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- The Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd, Dare House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai-600001(T.N).
- The Manager, Odissy Motors Private Ltd., Old N.H.6, Near Bhatli Chowk, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tah/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.N.Padhi, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri B.Panda, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.30/04/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant's father has purchased a New Maruti Suzuki D'zire VXI Car on Dt. 08-03-2022 bearing Regd. No. OD-17-X-9166 from Opposite Party No.2(two) and the said vehicle was financed by Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complainant's father has paid ₹1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty thousand)only in total to Opposite Party No.2(two) out of ₹7,05,690/-(Rupees seven lakh five thousand six hundred ninety)only the price of the aforesaid vehicle. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has financed ₹7,12,854/-(Rupees seven lakh twelve thousand eight hundred fifty four)only in favour of the Complainant's father Durlabha Rout bearing Loan Agreement No. XVFPBGH00004605406 on Dt.04-03-2022 with monthly installment of ₹11,465/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred sixty five)only the tenure is 84(eighty four) months. The Opposite Party No.1(one) financed the above vehicle and the vehicle was insured with Loan Surakhya Scheme of H.D.F.C. Life and the for the said scheme the said Durlabha Rout paid one time premium of ₹17,000/-(Rupees seventeen thousand)only. At the time of booking the Opposite Party No.2(two) has calculated all the charges amounting to ₹8,50,717/-(Rupees eight lakh fifty thousand seven hundred seventeen)only in total, and the father of the Complainant has paid ₹1,60,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixteen thousand)only and the total amount comes to ₹8,72,854/-(Rupees eight lakh seventy two thousand eight hundred fifty four)only but the Opposite Party No.2(two) has not provided any detail bills on Dt.15-03-2022. The loanee Durlabha Rout died and the Complainant claimed the benefit of loan Surakhsya Scheme but the Complainant intimated that the Loan Surakhya insurance is covered in the name of Jeetu Rout not in the name of Durlabha Rout and hence the benefit of loan Surakshya insurance cannot be claimed where the Complainant have to pay the remaining installment. A pleader notice was sent but the Opposite Parties remained silent. The Complainant came to know that the premium received by Opposite Party No.1(one) was not deposited to the H.D.F.C. Life for which the Complainant get harassed. For the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the Complaint is filed before this Commission by the Complainant praying that the Opposite Party No.1(one) be directed exempted the outstanding balance finance amount ₹6,29,546/-(Rupees six lakh twenty nine thousand five hundred forty six)only which is pending against the deceased father of the Complainant namely Durlabha Rout and to issue NOC against the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-17-X-9166 and ₹1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards compensation for unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties and ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only each of the Opposite Party towards litigation expenses.
2) The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed its version and submitted that the father of the Complainant Durlabha Rout and Complainant had approached the Opposite Party as applicant and co-applicant to finance a Maruti Suzuki Dzire VXI Car and applied with application No. 9080663 Dt.17-02-2022 and for the aforesaid vehicle the Opposite Party Finance Company has financed ₹7,12,854/-(Rupees seven lakh twelve thousand eight hundred fifty four)only vide contract No. XVFPBGH00004605406, for the said vehicle, the registration certificate as well as insurance of the hypothecated car, all the documents were handed over to the Complainant. The Complainant and his father has to repay the 84(eighty four) monthly EMI of ₹11,465/-(Rupees eleven thousand four hundred sixty five)only each but the Complainant and his father did not adhere with the terms and conditions and till Dt.11-01-2024, the Complainant has to pay ₹1,62,817/-(Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand eight hundred seventeen)only. The insurance was done by the Complainant and not by the financer hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Complaint to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one).
3) The case of Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not appear before this Commission. Hence, Opposite Party No.2(two) is set ex-parte.
4) Perused the complaint petition, documents, written arguments as well as oral submission and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in its service ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1(one)
5) It is an admitted fact that on Dt.17-02-2022 the Opposite Party No.1(one) has sanctioned ₹7,12,854/-(Rupees seven lakh twelve thousand eight hundred fifty four)only in favour of the Complainant's father and Complainant vide contract No. XVFPBGH0004605406. The said loan was sanctioned in the name of Durlabha Rout, the father of the Complainant and for the said loan the Complainant's father has paid insurnace premium for Loan Surakshya Sceme. The R.C.Book reflects that the loanee/borrower is the Complainant's father Durlabha Rout, there is no other documents that reflect that the Complainant's father had approached the insurance company to avail benefit under the loan Surkshya Scheme, it is the financer/Opposite Party No.1(one) who has the knowledge of the said Scheme and for the said scheme had to deposit relevant documents to the insurance company when the borrower/loanee is the father of the Complainant's father then the insured must be Complainant's father not the Complainant who is just a co-applicant in the said loan. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has practiced unfair trade practice by collecting the insurance premium from the loanee but the proposer/insured name included the Complainant. The Complainant has also submitted that notice has been sent on 11-01-2024 regarding commencement of arbitration proceedings, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6500-6501 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos.4849-4850 of 2023 in Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi and Others Vs B. Udayasri where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
“The Consumer Protection Act' is definitely a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer, Consumer disputes are assigned by the legislature to public fora, as a measure of public policy. Therefore, by necessary implication such disputes will fall in the category of non-arbitrable disputes, and these disputes should be kept away from a private fora such as “arbitration”, unless both the parties willingly opt for arbitration over the remedy before public fora.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
So, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above the present Opposite Part No.1(one) can not proceed with the arbitration act against the Complainant or its deceased father Dulabha Rout as such the present consumer complaint is pending before this Commission or the Complainant is not willing to opt for arbitration remedy. The Opposite Party No.1(one) appointed Arbitrator after received this Commission's notice which is intentionally, illegal and unarbitrary to harasses the Complainant.
6) Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1(one) has conducted unfair trade practice as well as deficient in its service by not insuring the loan Surakshya Schme in the name of the Complainant's father who is the borrower and should be insured for which the Complainant suffered a lost and has to pay all the monthly installment despite that the Complainant's father had died and the as per the aforesaid scheme Complainant could not avail benefits.
Issue No.2(two)
7) As per supra discussion the complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
Accordingly it is ordered.
O R D E R
8) The complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to waive out the outstanding dues loan amount vide loan account No. XVFPBGH0004605406 and to issue NOC against the vehicle bearing No. OD-17-X-9166 in the name of Complainant's father and pay ₹ 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only for mental harassment and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month of this order, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
9) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.30/04/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Parties and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
