Haryana

Karnal

CC/244/2022

Sunil - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB Financial Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 244 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.25.04.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 30.08.2022

 

Sunil, aged 34 years, son of Shri Dhanpat Ram, resident of village & P.O. Kohand, Tehsil and District Karnal (Aadhar no.5727 9394 4714).

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     HDB Financial Services Limited, through its Authorized Officer, opp. Sector 12, Karnal.

 

2.     HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized Officer, opp. Sector 12, Karnal.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri S.S.Moonak, counsel for the complainant.
                      Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OP no.1.

                      Shri Sanjeev Vohra, counsel for the OP no.2.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of the Truck no.HR-74-A-9060, Model 2014. The complainant had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.12,03,500/- from the OP no.1 in the month of August, 2019, the amount was to be repaid EMI amounting to Rs.42401/- in 38 installments. The said loan was linked with the insurance policy issued by the OP no.2 under the Sarv Suraksha Bima, vide policy no.2999202618341600, a sum of Rs.3494/- were paid as extra premium for covering the aforesaid loan amount in case of death and permanent/total disability, meaning thereby the entire loan amount was to be waived off. The complainant was driving the said truck of his own and being used for earning his livelihood. The complainant was paying the installments of loan regularly. The complainant had paid 20 installments. It is further averred that due to Covid-19 the loan period was extended as per the guidelines of the RBI and the Central Government i.e. moratorium was granted by the Government to all the loanee of the bank as well as the financial companies. The officials of the OP no.1 extended the period of loan amount and the EMI was fixed as Rs.34,200/- and thereafter the same was extended as Rs.38,951/-. It is further averred that on 11.07.2021 after loading the “Plastic Dana” from IOCL Refinery, Panipat the said truck reached Calcutta and unloaded the goods there. The truck was again loaded for Silchar (Assam) on 21.07.2021. During the course of unloading of the goods, at Silcher the complainant suffered accidental injury and became paralytic. The complainant was shifted to Vaidh Ram Charan Hospital, Bambahawar, District Gautambudh Nagar (U.P) and got the treatment, the complainant remained on bed for a long period. Due to this the complainant could not ply the truck on the road and could not pay the loan installments. Only five installments are to be paid. Since the complainant had become permanently disabled and handicapped and could not ply the truck on the road, as such the complainant could not deposit the installments

2.             It is further averred that in view of the “Sarv Suraksha” Policy, issued by OP no.2 the loan amount is to be waived off in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the complainant has become permanently handicapped and disabled. The complainant through his wife Smt. Seema Giri and his friend Rajnish Kumar informed the officials of the OPs regarding the physical condition of the complainant and for waiving off the loan amount. The officials of the OPs asked for documents which were duly supplied by the complainant to the OPs. The doctor has assessed the disability of the complainant to the extent of 75% permanent disability.  The loan amount has not been waived off despite the fact that the policy issued by OP no.2 contemplate that the amount of the loan is to be waived off in the event of Permanent Total Disability/Permanent Partial disability. It is further averred that now the official of the OP no.1 have threatened that they will snatch away the truck illegally and unlawfully from the complainant. The official of the OP no.1 are also threatening the complainant that in case if the entire loan amount is not cleared in one installment then they will use the coercive method against the complainant and also misuse the documents as well as the blank cheques. The complainant is a poor person and as got no source of income. If the official of the OP no.1 succeeds in recovering the alleged balance loan amount forcibly and illegally in any way or manner from the complainant, then in that eventuality the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant (borrower) alongwith Dhanpat Ram (co-borrower) have approached to the OP and requested the loan against commercial vehicle i.e. TATA LPT 3118. After perusal of the documents submitted by Sunil Kumar complainant and Dhanpat Ram, OP sanctioned the loan of Rs.12,03,500/- on 20.08.2019 and disbursed the same in the account of complainant. The said loan is maintained with OP, vide loan account no.8321995.  It is further pleaded that OP has disbursed the additional loan amount and the said loan was restructured as per statement of account. The said loan amount was to be repaid in 38 EMIs of Rs.42401/- including interest rate as per agreement. OP has disbursed the additional loan amount on the request of complainant and said loan was restricted as per statement of account. It is further pleaded that complainant has paid only 18 installments. It is further pleaded that OP is entitled to recover his loan amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement which were duly signed by the complainant and the co-borrower. There is no provision for waive off of loan amount in the loan agreement. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complainant qua OP.

4.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the present complaint is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with OP under the policy in question and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the OP. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any documents to prove that any claim was ever lodged by him with the OP. In the absence of requisite documents, the claim of complainant could not be registered with the OP. It is further pleaded that no intimation about the Permanent Total Disability/Permanent Partial Disability of the insured was ever given by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of R.C. Ex.C3, copy of Disability certificate Ex.C4, copy of treatment record Ex.C5, copy of letter dated 24.08.2021 (HDB) Ex.C6, statement account Ex.C7, copy of letter dated 05.07.2021 (HDB) Ex.C8, copy of letter dated 27.08.2019 Ex.C9, copy of policy Ex.C10, schedule of loan (HDB) Ex.C11, Route Permit Ex.C12, copy of medical bills Ex.C13 to Ex.C16, copy of letter dated 27.7.2021 (HDB) Ex.C17, copy of driving licence of complainant Ex.C18, copy of policy issue by OP no.2 alongwith terms and conditions Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on 20.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kapil Dhawan special Power of Attorney Ex.OP1/A, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account Ex.OP2, copy of restructured schedule Ex.OP3, copy of declaration letter dated 27.07.2021 and closed the evidence on 01.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Kumar Prajapati, Manager Ex.OP2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 01.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

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

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.12,03,500/- from the OP no.1.The amount was to be repaid in 38 installments amounting to Rs.42401/-. The said loan was linked with the insurance policy issued by the OP no.2 under the Sarv Suraksha Bima, a sum of Rs.3494/- were paid as extra premium for covering the aforesaid loan amount in case of death and permanent/total disability. The complainant was paying the installments of loan regularly. The complainant had paid 20 installments. On 21.07.2021 during the course of unloading of the goods, the complainant suffered accidental injury and became paralytic. Due to this the complainant could not ply the truck and could not pay the loan installments. In view of the “Sarv Suraksha” Policy, issued by OP no.2 the loan amount is to be waived off in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the complainant has become permanently handicapped and disabled. The doctor has assessed the disability of the complainant to the extent of 75% permanent disability.  The loan amount has not been waived off despite the fact that the policy issued by OP no.2 contemplate that the amount of the loan is to be waived off in the event of Permanent Total Disability/Permanent Partial disability and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP sanctioned the loan of Rs.12,03,500/- on 20.08.2019 and disbursed the same in the account of complainant. OP has disbursed the additional loan amount and the said loan was restructured as per statement of account. The said loan amount was to be repaid in 38 EMIs of Rs.42401/- including interest rate as per agreement. Complainant has paid only 18 installments. He further argued that OP is entitled to recover his loan amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement. There is no provision for waive off of loan amount in the loan agreement and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that present complaint is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with OP under the policy in question and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the OP. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any documents to prove that any claim was ever lodged by him with the OP. In the absence of requisite documents, the claim of complainant could not be registered with the OP. No intimation about the Permanent Total Disability/Permanent Partial Disability of the insured was ever given by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

14.           Admittedly, complainant got financed the vehicle in question from the OP no.1. It is also admitted that complainant has availed the “Sarv Suraksha” policy from the OP no.2 through OP no.1.

15.           The OPs have taken a plea that the present complaint is premature, as the till date complainant neither lodged any claim nor has intimated to OP about his disability and also has not submitted any documents pertaining to his disability.

16.           The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant. The said plea taken by the OPs have not been rebutted by the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that he had informed the OPs with regard to his disability and had submitted the claim with the OPs.  Hence, it has been proved on the record that the complainant has neither intimated the OPs with regard to his disability and nor lodged any claim with the OPs. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the OPs till date. Hence, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to submit the claim to the OPs. Thus, at this stage, the complaint of the complainant is premature and OPs are not deficient in service.

17            In view of above observation, we dispose of the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to lodge the claim with the OPs and on receipt of claim form, OPs are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within one month. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:30.08.2022

                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                       (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                     Member                        Member