Haryana

Karnal

CC/409/2020

Rahul - Complainant(s)

Versus

AU Small Finance Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Jani

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 409 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.07.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:03.08.2023

 

Rahul son of Shri Isham Singh, resident of house no.280, Phoosgarh Road, Rajiv Puram, Gali no.3, Karnal, age 31 years, Aadar card no.2823 5455 5538.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. Sector 12, Karnal through its Manager.
2. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., Registered office at 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur through in Managing Director/authorized Signatory.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Manoj Jani, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Akash Chawla, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:

                  

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is owner of vehicle Innova GX Diesel bearing registration no.HR-51-BT-9768, which was financed from OPs, vide loan agreement no.L9001020216433701 dated 30.12.2018 of Rs.4,00,000/-. At the time of finance of the vehicle , OPs told that they have tie up with the insurance company and vehicle of the complainant has been insured from the insurance company and they have send the insurance policy to the complainant after sometime and same has been automatically renewed every year till the clearance of finance amount. OPs also received insurance premium from the complainant. Thereafter, complainant many times requested the OPS to handover the insurance policy but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 30.1.2020, the said vehicle of the complainant has been burnt due to short circuit and in this regard an GD no.16 dated 31.01.2020 IPC has been registered in Police Station Nissing. Intimation in this regard was sent to the OPs within time and submitted all the relevant documents then OPs assured that they will send the claim to the insurance company and insurance company automatically will pay the claim amount to the OPs and after receiving the information from insurance company they will inform the complainant. The complainant also surrender the vehicle to the OPs, vide surrender letter dated 05.02.2020. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs so many times and enquired about the insurance and demanded insurance policy but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Now employee of the OPs frequently visited to the complainant and demanded financed amount then complainant told that he has already surrenderred the vehicle as per contract, so now nothing is due against the complainant but officials of the OPs adamant in nature flatly refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking directions to the OPs to issue No Dues Certificate, to handover the insurance policy, not to harass the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OPs never forced the complainant to get the vehicle insured from their side. It is the sweet will of the party to get his vehicle insured from any insurance company. However, it is the complainant who himself asked the OP no.1 to get his vehicle insured if they have any tie-up with any company then after OP no.1 recommended the insurance company i.e. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited and complainant asked the OPs to deduct the insurance premium amount from the finance amount. It is incorrect that the said insurance policy will automatically renew every year till the clearance of finance amount. OPs act only as a mediator between the complainant and insurance company and nothing else. It is further pleaded that complainant has financed the vehicle amount from the OPs which the same has to be repaid through monthly EMI as settled between the complainant and the OPs and that the same pertains to or arises out of a Loan Agreement that had been duly signed and entered into complainant and OP no.1. It is incorrect that nothing is due against the OPs even complainant has never paid his EMI timely and post selling the surrendered vehicle loss on sale amount is still due against him. So, further an Arbitration proceeding has been instituted on dated 30.12.2019 against the complainant and in lieu of the same an award has been also passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of Narendra Yadav vide Arbitration case no.AU/1275/2019 on 02.09.2020. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

 4.            Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of DDR Ex.C1, copy of application to SHO Ex.C2, copy of surrender letter to company Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 25.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sushil Kumar authorized representative Ex.OP1/A, copy of Arbitral Award dated 02.09.2020 Ex.OP1, copy of loan application form Ex.OP2, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP3, copy of statement of account Ex.OP4, copy of demand notices dated 09.07.2020, 15.02.2020, 19.07.2020, 20.08.2019 Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP8, copy of demand notice record dated 20.08.2019 Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 29.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant got financed his vehicle from the OPs and OPs itself got insured his vehicle from the insurance company. OPs also assured the complainant that in future the vehicle will be insured automatically till clearance of the finance amount.  On 30.01.2020, the vehicle of the complainant has been burnt due to short circuit. On 05.02.2020, complainant surrendered the vehicle with the OPs. Complainant visited the office of OPs  and requested to settle the claim but OPs failed to do so and now OPs demanded financed amount from the complainant, which is totally illegal and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that OPs never forced the complainant to get the vehicle insured from their side. OPs never assured to the complainant that insurance policy will automatically renewed year to year till the clearance of the finance amount. He further argued that complainant never paid EMI timely and become defaulter. He further argued that an Arbitration Award has already been passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on 02.09.2020 in the present case and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant got financed his vehicle from the OPs, vide loan agreement no.L9001020216433701 dated 30.12.2018 of Rs.4,00,000/-.

11.           The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. To prove his case, complainant has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of DDR Ex.C1, copy of application to SHO Ex.C2 and copy of surrender letter to company Ex.C3, except these documents there is nothing is on the file to prove that complainant got insured his vehicle from any insurance company and the premium of the insurance policy was deducted from the loan account of complainant automatically. Rather, OPs have placed on file statement of account Ex.OP4, on perusal of the said statement of account, no premium amount has been deducted by the OPs as insurance premium. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 07.10.2020 and Arbitration Award Ex.OP1 has been passed on 02.09.2020 prior to filing the present complaint. Hence, in view of the above, the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission as Arbitration Award has already been passed.

12.           Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:03.08.2023                                                                     

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

      

 (Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                

            Member                                Member