Haryana

Kaithal

32/20

Kaushayla Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Pawan Kumar Midha

12 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.32/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:12.07.2023.

1. Kaushalya Rani widow of Late Sh. Milkhi Ram
2. Amit Jindal son of Late Sh. Milkhi Ram, residents of House No.287, R III, HUDA (Now H.S.V.P.) Ward No.8, Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.
3. Anamika daughter of Late Sh. Milkhi Ram & wife of Sh. Vinit Singla, now resident of House No.9, Model Town, Tohana, District Fatehabad.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. Axis Bank Limited having Branch at Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. Axis Bank Limited having branch at S.C.B. No.5, Ist Floor, Chhoti Baradari, near Narain Continental Hotel, Patiala-147001 (Punjab) through its Branch Manager.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, having branch office at Patiala Road, Samana District Patiala (Punjab) through its Branch Manager.
4. Ms. Meenal Garg wife of Sh. Rohit Garg, care of ANC Consultants Patiala Bypass Road, Samana, District Patiala (Punjab), Mobilee No.90418-75446.
5. Mr. Rohit Garg care of ANC Consultants Patiala Bypass Road, Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) Mobile No.98140-56846.
6. Axis Bank Limited having registered office at TRISHUL, 3^rd floor opposite Samartheswar Temple, near Law Garden, Elisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 through its Managing Director/C.E.O.
7. United India Insurance Company Limited, having branch office at Ist Floor, opposite Indira Gandhi Girls College, Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Pawan Kumar Midha, Advocate, for the complainants.   

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the OPs.No.1, 2 & 6.

Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the OPs No.3 & 7.

OPs No.4 & 5 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Kaushalya Rani and others-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that in the month of March, 2013 Sh. Milki Ram (since deceased) alongwith complainant No.2 co-applicant availed a car loan facility namely “Power Drive” bearing agreement No.AURO19500687076 from the OPs No.1 & 2 for purchasing a Swift Dezire Car.  It is alleged that the OPs No.1 & 2 disbursed a loan amount of Rs.5,75,000/- for purchasing the said car.  The installments of loan amount settled @ Rs.12,433/- per month through the Standing Instruction repayment mode.  Thereafter, the above-said car got registered with Registration Authority Guhla, District Kaithal bearing No.HR09-D-1799.  It is further alleged that on 29.07.2015, said Sh. Milkhi Ram expired.  Regarding his death, the complainant No.2 informed the OP No.3 through the OPs No.4 & 5.  After the death of said Sh. Milkhi Ram, the complainants visited at Registration Office Guhla for the purpose of transfer the car registration in the name of complainant No.2.  After completing the required documents, the complainant No.2 contacted at Registration Department Guhla and they asked for No Dues Certificate from financier bank.  Thereafter, the complainant No.2 contacted with OPs No.1 & 2 for No Dues Certificate, which they refused to issue the same without the clearance of hypothecation.  At that time, the complainants were not in a position to pay the balance loan amount.  It is further alleged that for the period w.e.f. 27.03.20128 to 26.03.2019, the above-said car was insured by the OP No.3 through the OP No.4 vide policy No.1117043117P118822531 and the insured declared value of hypothecated car was Rs.3,50,000/-.  It is further alleged that in the evening of 28.04.2018, the above-said car was stolen from the outside gate of Aashirwaad Banquet Palace, Baltana within the jurisdiction of P.S.Zirakpur (Punjab).  It is further alleged that the complainant No.2 made a complaint with local police upon which the FIR bearing No.0141 dt. 29.04.2018 under Section 379 IPC was registered in the Police Station Zirakpur (Punjab).  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP No.3 and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP No.3 repudiated the claim of complainants vide letter dt. 28.08.2018.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No. 1 to 3, 6 & 7 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.4 & 5 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 18.03.2020.  OPs No.1, 2 & 6 contested the complaint by filing their joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no dispute between the complainants and answering OPs.  The answering OPs have no role to play in the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant No.2 was co-applicant with said Milkhi Ram for availing the car loan facilities from the answering OPs, hence not only complainant No.2 but all the complainants being legal heirs of said Milkhi Ram including complainant No.2 were also bound to repay the said car loan.  The said installments were deducted directly from the saving account bearing No.912010063670553 in the name of Milkhi Ram due to auto debit facility availed by the complainant No.2 and said Milkhi Ram.  Furthermore, on 18.09.2015 an amount of Rs.3,25,763/- was outstanding amount and the answering OPs were not in a position to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainants.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OPs No.3 & 7 filed the joint written statement raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint.  The complainants were not having any insurable interest in the alleged car as at the time of alleged loss, the car in question was insured in the name of late Sh. Milkhi Ram vide policy No.111704311UP118822531 and moreover, no intimation about the alleged death of Sh. Milkhi Ram (which took place on 29.07.2015) was ever given by the complainants to the answering OPs and the policy in question including previous policies issued after the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram were got issued by signing the proposal form in the name of Sh. Milkhi Ram and by doing so, the complainants tried to cheat the answering OPs.  Had they informed the answering OPs about the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram, the answering OPs would not have insured the vehicle in question in the name of late Sh. Milkhi Ram, thus fault if any lies on the shoulders of complainants/legal heirs of late Sh. Milkhi Ram.  Thus, the complainants were neither registered owner nor the insured under the policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint 

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C37 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the OPs No.3 & 7 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, OPs No.1, 2 & 6 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that in the month of March, 2013 Sh. Milki Ram (since deceased) alongwith complainant No.2 co-applicant availed a car loan facility namely “Power Drive” bearing agreement No.AURO19500687076 from the OPs No.1 & 2 for purchasing a Swift Dezire Car.  It is further argued that the OPs No.1 & 2 disbursed a loan amount of Rs.5,75,000/- for purchasing the said car.  The installments of loan amount settled @ Rs.12,433/- per month through the Standing Instruction repayment mode.  Thereafter, the above-said car got registered with Registration Authority Guhla, District Kaithal bearing No.HR09-D-1799.  It is further argued that on 29.07.2015, said Sh. Milkhi Ram expired.  Regarding his death, the complainant No.2 informed the OP No.3 through the OPs No.4 & 5.  After the death of said Sh. Milkhi Ram, the complainants visited at Registration Office Guhla for the purpose of transfer the car registration in the name of complainant No.2.  After completing the required documents, the complainant No.2 contacted at Registration Department Guhla and they asked for No Dues Certificate from financier bank.  Thereafter, the complainant No.2 contacted with OPs No.1 & 2 for No Dues Certificate, which they refused to issue the same without the clearance of hypothecation.  At that time, the complainants were not in a position to pay the balance loan amount.  It is further argued that for the period w.e.f. 27.03.2018 to 26.03.2019, the above-said car was insured by the OP No.3 through the OP No.4 vide policy No.1117043117P118822531 as per Annexure-C15 and the insured declared value of hypothecated car was Rs.3,50,000/-.  It is further alleged that in the evening of 28.04.2018, the above-said car was stolen from the outside gate of Aashirwaad Banquet Palace, Baltana within the jurisdiction of P.S.Zirakpur (Punjab).  It is further argued that the complainant No.2 made a complaint with local police upon which the FIR bearing No.0141 dt. 29.04.2018 under Section 379 IPC was registered in the Police Station Zirakpur (Punjab).  The complainants lodged the claim with the OP No.3 and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP No.3 repudiated the claim of complainants vide letter dt. 28.08.2018.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Ld. counsel for the complainants has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Manmohan Nanda Vs. UII, 2022(1) CPJ 20 (SC); Canara Bank Vs. UII, 2020(1) CPJ 99 (SC); NIC Vs. Risheendran Nambiar and others, 2018(4) CLT 65 (NC) and Louis Dreyfus Co. India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UII, 2019(3) CLT 58 (NC). 

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 7 has argued that complainants were not having any insurable interest in the alleged car as at the time of alleged loss, the car in question was insured in the name of late Sh. Milkhi Ram vide policy No.111704311UP118822531 and moreover, no intimation about the alleged death of Sh. Milkhi Ram (which took place on 29.07.2015) was ever given by the complainants to the OPs and the policy in question including previous policies issued after the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram were got issued by signing the proposal form in the name of Sh. Milkhi Ram and by doing so, the complainants tried to cheat the answering OPs.  Had they informed the OPs about the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram, the OPs would not have insured the vehicle in question in the name of late Sh. Milkhi Ram, thus fault if any lies on the shoulders of complainants/legal heirs of late Sh. Milkhi Ram.  Thus, the complainants were neither registered owner nor the insured under the policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.3 & 7.  Ld. counsel for OPs No.3 & 7 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Nirasha Sinha Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2017 SCC Online NCDRC 1587 decided on 18.08.2017.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OPs No.1, 2 & 6 has argued that there is no dispute between the complainants and OPs No.1, 2 & 6.  It is further argued that the OPs have no role to play in the present complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1, 2 & 6.              

11.            We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  During the arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant and OPs No.3 & 7 have placed on file written arguments.  We have perused written arguments of both the parties.  It is clear that after the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram in the year 2015, the complainants got the insurance policy renewed in the name of deceased Sh. Milkhi Ram without intimating to the insurance company about the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram which took place on 29.07.2015.  As per IRDI Instructions, “in the event of death of insured, the policy will remain valid for three months from the date of death or until epxiry of policy which ever happens earlier.  The legal heirs required to get the policy transferred in their names or to take fresh policy within this period.”  Admittedly, after the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram, insurance company was not informed about his death by complainants/legal heirs and took three policies thereafter.  It is also clear that no request for change of name of insured was ever received in the office of insurance company.  The perusal of policy Ex.R1 reveals that policy No.1117043117P118822531 was issued in the name of Sh. Milkhi Ram which was valid w.e.f. 27.03.2018 to 26.03.2019.  It was the duty of legal heirs of Sh. Milkhi Ram to get the policy issued in their names but they have miserably failed to do so and for the first time informed about the death of Sh. Milkhi Ram when the said vehicle was stolen on 28.04.2018.  From the facts and circumstances of the case it is clear the complainants were neither registered owner of vehicle in question nor having any insurable interest in the vehicle at the time of alleged los.  In this regard, we rely upon the authority titled as Nirasha Singh Vs. HDFC Ergo Gen. Insurance Co. (mentioned supra) submitted by ld. counsel for the OPs No.3 & 7, wherein similar preposition was discussed and complaint was dismissed upto Hon’ble National Commission.  The Hon’ble National Commission while dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner Nirasha Sinha held that policy in question was obtained in the name of a dead person and contract in the name of dead person is a nullity in the eyes of law, thus the insurer is not bound to make payment of any loss suffered by the complainant.  The said authority is fully applicable to the facts of instant case, whereas the authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainants are not distinguishable but the same are not applicable to the facts of instant case.  Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Hence, the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs.

12.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.07.2023.  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.