BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

1]Sukhwinder Singh s/o Gurnam Singh, r/o 3404/2, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Corporate Office:- Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 2^nd Floor,Sadana House, Behind Mahindra Towers, 570, P.B. Marg, Worli, Mumbai (400018). Through its Manager in Chandigarh.

2]Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., SCO -3, 1^st Floor, Sector 26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, Through its Manager in Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT                         DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by:  None for complainant.

                 Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased Mahindra Bolero SLX from M/s Swami Motors. The total price of the vehicle at the time of purchase was Rs.6,38,000/- out of which the marginal money of Rs.1,08,000/- was paid by the complainant.  The remaining amount of Rs. Rs.5,30,000/- was got financed by the complainant from the OPs.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant under hire-purchase agreement on 6.08.08 with a flat rate of interest and the loan was settled to be returned in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.12,170/-. The complainant got the vehicle registered at Chandigarh and the vehicle was fully insured with United Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The above said vehicle got stolen on 13.09.08 and till then only two installments had been by the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the Insurance Company as well as Mahindra Financial Services(OPs) regarding the theft of the vehicle and the claim application was filed by the complainant before the insurance company. The Insurance Company passed the claim of Rs.5,94,000/- in favour of the complainant subjected to the transfer of vehicle/RC in favour of Insurance Company and N.O.C. to be produced from the OP regarding loan clearance. As per the complainant when he went to the OPs for N.O.C., it was told by the OPs that the N.O.C. would only be issued only after the payment of the remained 58 installments alongwith over due charges and penalties. The complainant visited the office of the OPs several times for the settlement of the loan amount, so that the N.O.C. would be issued by the OPs but the OPs denied for the N.O.C. The complainant then served a legal notice to the OPs but they had not bothered to reply. Till date the OPs had not issued the above said N.O.C. to the complainant. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the OPs submitted that the complainant had deposited only 2 installments towards repayment of the loan amount to them. The OPs submitted that they informed the complainant that the total outstanding amount in the loan account was more than the insurance claim which was Rs.6,34,567/- as on 11.11.09 and the N.O.C. would be issued only after the outstanding loan amount is received. The OPs submitted that the loan account was deliberately and intentionally defaulted by the complainant. No money was deposited by the complainant to them towards the liquidation of the loan liability. The OPs submitted that under these circumstances the N.O.C. would not be issued to the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record. 

5.             The Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to the letter now marked as Annexure C-1 dated 20.07.09 vide which the United Insurance Company Limited asked for the consent of the complainant in the shape of an affidavit that the amount of Rs.5,94,000/- would be acceptable to him towards the full and final settlement of the theft loss of his vehicle.  We cannot go into the entitlement of the complainant to an amount more than Rs.5,94,000/- because United Insurance Company Limited has not been made a party to this complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant.  The Insurance Company has also asked for certain other documents from the complainant including the transfer of RC in their favour. The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle cannot be transferred unless the OP issues N.O.C. but they are insisting upon the payment of the amount due from him which he is unable to pay in lump sum.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that a sum of Rs.6,34,567/- was due from the complainant as on 10.11.09 as is clear from the settlement working sheet now marked as Annexure R-1. Since the vehicle was under hypothecation with the OP they are entitled to receive the amount of Rs.5,94,000/- from the Insurance Company.  The remaining amount of Rs.40,567/- is to be paid by the complainant from his own pocket. The complainant is therefore directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,567/- and the OPs shall issue N.O.C. in his favour, within 15 days from the receipt of the amount from the complainant, for the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the Insurance Company. The complainant shall thereafter get the endorsement regarding hypothecation removed from the Motor Vehicle Authorities and comply with other requirements of the letter Annexure C-1 and submit the documents/forms/ affidavits to the Insurance Company for the transfer of the vehicle in their favour. So far as the transfer of the certificate of registration is concerned, as per Section 41 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, registration of the vehicle is to be got transferred by the Insurance Company at their own level. The Insurance Company would pay the amount of Rs.5,94,000/- directly to the OP and the complainant would not be entitled to receive the aforesaid amount as compensation from the OP unless he has paid the entire amount of loan to the OP from his pocket.  The complaint is disposed off accordingly.          

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.