Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
This is a complaint U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that, he has purchased a TATA Indigo Ecs/Ls to be used a taxi through Tata Motors finance Ltd . After receiving all the required documents from the complainant and verification of the same opp.party No.1,2 & 3 disbursed the loan amount to the complainant who has purchased the vehicle to use it as taxi for earning his livelihood. The vehicle purchased by the complainant was registered under R.T.O,Angul bearing Regd. No. OR-19- 4215 .As per the agreement the vehicle has to be insured by the opp.parties till the end of every consecutive year till the end of agreement period. The vehicle was insured by opp.party No.1,2 & 3 with opp.party No.4 bearing policy No. 620900311201100-34944 which is to be valid from 17.10.2012 to 16.10.2013 midnight for the 1st year. Accordingly the opp.parties started deducting insurance premium for the next year in advance along with monthly EMIs. The complainant has paid monthly EMIs towards loan including premium towards insurance regularly as per the repayment schedule. When the first year insurance term was over on 16.10.2013 the complainant went to the office of opp.party No.1 and asked for the second year insurance policy, for which the opp.party No.1,2 & 3 have received the premium along with the EMIs. The opp.party No.1 deferred the matter on different false pretext. After repeated request , finally opp.party No.1 handed over the policy certificate for a private Car| instead of Taxi .The second year policy was issued on 21.09.2013 while the previous policy was in force. Immediately the said fact was brought to the notice of opp.party No.1,2 & 3 but they did not take any step for correction of the insurance policy. For the aforesaid reason the complainant was unable to ply his vehicle on the road from 16.10.2013 till filing of the case i.e on 25.11.2013. The complainant suffered hardship and put to monetary loss of Rs.2,000.00 per day. Hence this case.
3. Notices were issued to all the opp.parties through Regd. post with A.D. Opp.party No.1,2 & 3 filed a joint written statement.
The case of the opp.party No.1,2 & 3 is that Tata Motors Finance Ltd., is a company duly incorporated U/s.45-IA of the RBI Act 1934, as a Systemically Important Non-Banking Finance Company , having its registered office at Nanavati Mahalaya,3rd Floor,18,Homi Mody Street,Mumbai. The present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and only an abuse of process of law. The complainant is not a consumer and the dispute raised by him is not a consumer dispute. The complainant has not come to the forum with clean hand, for which he can not claim any relief from this authority. The complainant failed to pay the premium as per the prescribed repayment schedule. The complainant has violated the terms of the agreement by way of late payment, part payment, and default payment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party No.1,2 & 3. As per the contract the cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,46,180.00 , in which an initial amount of Rs. 56,180.00 was paid by the complainant and remaining amount of Rs.4,90,000.00 was financed by the company of opp.party No.1,2 &3. The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,29,075.00 towards finance charges. It was also agreed that the opp.party No.1,2 & 3 while insured the vehicle from the second year till the contract period is over and for which insurance premium to be paid by the complainant in the previous year. Since the loan tenure was five years, a provisional insurance premium was collected for four years for an amount of Rs. 1,08,000.00 .The complainant was liable to pay total sum of Rs.8,27,075.00 towards the contract value which is to be repaid in 59 equal monthly instalments. The total loan amount is to be clear before 15.09.2017.The complainant failed to pay the instalments in time. The complainant had deposited post dated cheques with the opp.parties towards the repayment of the loan instalments. When those cheques were presented to the Bank by opp.party No.1,2 & 3 those were regularly dishonoured due to in sufficient funds in the account of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for relief U/s.14 of C.P.Act. The case be dismissed U/s. 26 of the Act. As there is Arbitration Clause in the loan agreement, the present proceeding before this authority is not maintainable at all. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and he is to approach the arbitrator in case of any dispute between the parties. The complainant has filed this case only to black mail the opp.party No.1,2 & 3. The opp.party No.1,2 & 3 has received the notice from this forum on 03.12.2013 and thereafter it was ascertain that an error has been committed while processing the huge numbers of files requiring renewal of the policy, occurred and accordingly opp.party No.1,2 & 3 rectified the error by issuing fresh insurance policy certificate with a package of “Passenger carrying” vide No. 5527003113630063639 dtd. 24.12.2013 with the opp.party No.2.Although the alleged policy issued with the package of “ private car” on 21.09.2013 it was to be effected from 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2014 midnight. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party No.1,2 & 3.
4. The case of the opp.party No. 4 is that there is no cause of action against opp.party No.4. The case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no cause of action to file this case by the complainant. The allegations made by the complainant against opp.party No.4 is false and baseless. The complainant has not intimated about the mistake in the insurance policy of the second year to the opp.party No.4 Soon after getting information from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. necessary rectification was made and the premium was collected by the opp.party No.4 from the finance company. The allegations made by the complainant that he failed to ply the vehicle from 16.10.2013 is false and baseless. The policy was issued on 21.09.2013 for the period 17.10.2013 to 16.10.2014 .The opp.aprty No.4 is no way liable for deficiency in service as it has not received the premium from opp.party No.1,2 & 3 for the second year. The case against opp.party No.4 is not maintainable and the opp.party No.4 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant.
5. Perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant on 25.11.2013.The said complaint petition was supported with affidavit. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant has purchased the car to carry passengers and paid the premium for the insurance for five years to opp.party No.1,2 & 3 along with the prescribed EMIs. In the first year the insurance policy was issued for the period 17.10.2012 to 16.10.2013 midnight, which relates to “passenger carrying” package policy .
From the paragraph-5 on the written statement filed by the opp.party No.1,2 & 3 it is clear that they had received the premium of the insurance policy in advance from the complainant and issued the insurance policy through opp.party No.4 for the first year. It is also admitted in the show cause by opp.party No.1,2 & 3 that while processing a huge numbers of files requiring for renewal of the policy, by mistake a policy was issued to the complainant with package of “private car” which was rectified later on. From the materials on record it further reveals that later on opp.party No.1,2 & 3 paid the premium for the insurance policy to opp.party NO.4 when the defect was pointed out by the complainant and accordingly the insurance policy was corrected as “ passenger carrying” package. The opp.party No1,2 & 3 are negligent in giving due service to the complainant , although they have received the premium of the insurance from the complainant through EMIs for about five years.
5. After going though the pleading of the parties and the documents available on the case record it is clear that opp.party No.1,2,3 failed to provide proper service to the complainant, for which he sustained loss for not plying the vehicle for some period.
6. Hence ordered :-
: O R D E R :
The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opp.party No.4 and allowed in part on contest against opp.party No.1,2 & 3 .The opp.party No.1,2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service . They are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only towards compensation for monetary loss, harassment, mental agony to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12%per annum till payment is made.
