Haryana

StateCommission

A/972/2017

MAGMA FINANCE CORP. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABU LAL - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT SAREEN

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.972 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 11.08.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 16.06.2022

 

1. The General Manager, Magma Finance Corporation Limited, Registered office 24, Park Street, Kolkata.
2. The Manager, Magma Finance Corporation Limited, G-74, Kamla Palace, Near Dharuhera Chungi, Rewari.

…..Appellants

Versus

Babu Lal S/o Khem Chand R/o Village Rivasa, Kurhavata Road, Tehsil & District Mohindergarh, Haryana & Others.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Mohit Sareen, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Nupur Sood, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.    

2.      The present appeal No.972 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (Now In short “District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.141 of 2014, which was allowed.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got financed his truck Tata 709 bearing registration number HR 34E 0381 from opposite party No.2 through OP No.3 and 4 for a total sum of Rs.5,84,896/- (Rs.4,02,000/-  + Rs.1,42,896/- as interest).  The loan was to be repaid in 32 installments. OPs collected one installment of Rs.17,208/- in advance from him. The vehicle was got insured for the period from 01.01.2011 to 21.12.2011 from Reliance General Insurance Company and thereafter on 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 from IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. The premium for both of the insurances was paid by HPA Tata Motors Finances Co. Ltd. and nothing was paid by  complainant however he has been paying the installment of loan regularly. When the insurance cover of the above said vehicle of complainant expired on 31.12.2012, then he produced the vehicle in respondents office at Rewari and officials of OP No.2 gave false assurance of providing insurance cover by making the payment to the insurance company for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.12.2013. Therefore complainant got the vehicle insured at his own for the period from 29.01.2013 to 28.01.2014 by paying Rs.18,059.48 and again for the period from 01.02.2014 to 31.01.2015 by paying premium of Rs.19256.92 and thus he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.37,316/-.  He has been making the payments of loan regularly upto March 2014. The OPs had caused the loss of Rs.37316/-.  The OPs had caused the loss of Rs.50,000/- due to non fulfilling the contractual obligation on their part. He got the legal notice served upon the OPs through his counsel, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      O.P. filed reply. Other objections about maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction, commercial purpose, bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, no locus standi, accruing cause of action etc. have also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

          On merits, the complainant got financed the abovesaid vehicle from OP No.2 Mgma Fincorp Limited, of a sum of Rs.4,02,000/-. It was denied that a sum of Rs.1,42,656/- was levied as interest.    It was also denied that total sum of Rs.5,44,896/- were required to be paid in 32 installments.  It was submitted that Rs.1,48,656/- were levied as interest and the total sum of Rs.5,50,656/- were required to be paid by the complainant.  It was also denied that answering OPs have collected/taken one installment of Rs.17,208/- in advance from him and last installment was to be paid on 20.11.2014. As per agreement, the first installment was to be paid on or before 24.04.2012 and last installment was to be paid on or before 19.12.2014.  It was denied that the installments were paid by the complainant regularly. As per the loan agreement, OPs were not supposed to get this vehicle insured rather it was the complainant who was to get it done at his own end and no amount of premium has ever been added to the outstanding loan amount. Thus there was no deficiency in services rendered by OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rewari has allowed the complaint vide order dated 30.05.2017. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“In the circumstances, the present complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs.34,080/- as insurance premiums and also to pay lump sum compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.  Let the compliance be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the entire awarded amount shall fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from today i.e. the date of decision till payment. Ordered accordingly.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.Nos.1 and 2-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument have been advanced by Sh.Mohit Sareen, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Nupur Sood, learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that  as per agreement, the first installment was to be paid on or before 24.04.2012 and last installment was to be paid on or before 19.12.2014.  It was further argued that installments have not been paid by the complainant regularly. It was alleged that vehicle in question has been used for commercial purpose. Further argued that the OPs did not promise to insure the vehicle, hence the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 be set aside, appeal be accepted and  complaint be dismissed.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.1 argued that OPs did not insure the vehicle despite promise and repeated requests and due to this reason, he suffered loss  of Rs.37,316/- as vehicle remained unused for not providing the insurance cover for the period from 01.01.2013 to 28.01.2013.  The learned District Commission rightly allowed the complaint and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

10.    It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was financed by OP NO.2-The Manager, Magma Finances Corporation Limited. It is also not disputed that initially the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 from Reliance General Insurance Company and thereafter from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 from Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Perusal of the record shows that complainant had obtained vehicle’s insurance from the different companies.    The opposite parties-appellants have been dealing       only with finance of the vehicle.  Moreover, if the complainant had agreed to pay the insurance premium to the OPs only then in that situation, the insurance company will get the insurance policy as per request of the OPs for the financed vehicle. So it was the sole responsibility of the complainant to purchase the insurance policy for his vehicle.  The plea of the complainant about insured the vehicle by the OPs is not tenable in the eyes of law.

11.    In the considered opinion of this Commission, the learned District Commission has gravely and manifestly erred while allowing the complaint, which is absolutely contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Hence while accepting the appeal in toto, the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned District Commission, Rewari stands set aside and the complaint is also dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.22,040/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

13.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.          File be consigned to record room.

16th  June, 2022     Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)