Haryana

Kurukshetra

256/2016

Gurvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB - Opp.Party(s)

Sohan Lal

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                        Complaint Case No.256 of 2016.

                                                                Date of instt: 15.09.2016 

                                                        Date of Decision:22.01.2019.

1. Gurvinder Kaur widow of late Jagmal son of Karam Singh,
2. Neha Malik (minor) daughter of late Jagmal
3. Deepu Malik (minor) son of late Jagmal,
4. Chameli Devi wife of Karam Singh (mother)

all residents of Dera, Karam Singh, Jasso Patti, Sarsa, Tehsil     Pehowa, District, District Kurukshetra.

Complainants No.2 & 3 through Gurvinder Kaur, widow of late Jagmal son of Karam Singh, who is natural guardian and their next friends.

                                                                  …Complainants.  

                        Versus      

1. HDB Financial Services Limited, 2^nd Floor Gokul towers, Panjagutta Main Road, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
2. HDB Financial Services Limited, Branch Office Ambala, through its Branch Manager, District Ambala.
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.
4. HDB Financial Services Limited, SCO-39, 1^ST Floor, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                        …Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. Sohan Lal, Adv. for complainants.

Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for the Ops No.1,2 & 4.

Sh. Atul Mittal, Adv. for OP No.3.

   

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Gurvinder Kaur and others complainants against HDB Financial Services Limited and others, the opposite parties.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that late Jagmal had purchased a truck of TATA motors from Metro Motors Private Limited, G.T. Road, P.O. Mohari, District Ambala on finance through Ops No.1 & 2 and the same was delivered to Jagmal at Sarsa, District Kurukshetra.  At the time of purchase of truck, the same was insured under Sarv Surksha Policy through Op No.3.  As per said policy, the truck was insured for the period 14.3.2013 to 13.2.2017 and “credit shield insurance” facilities were also accorded under the said scheme vide policy No.295020045 8261400000.  As per this scheme in case of owner of vehicle expired, the insurance company would be liable to make the remaining installments of the said vehicle to the outstanding loan amount. The Op No.3 had charged a sum of Rs.1684/- for covering the vehicle under the above said scheme to the extent of Rs.10,52,500/-.  Shri Jagmal had expired on 7.5.2016 in a road side accident and in this regard FIR No.205 dated 8.5.2016 was registered in Police Station Pehowa under Section 279, 304 A IPC and intimation regarding the death was given to the Ops on the same day. As per terms and conditions of said policy the insurance company is liable to make payment of the remaining installments to Ops No.1 & 2.  The Ops No.1 & 2 were bound to claim the remaining amount from Op No.3 after the death of Jagmal but the Ops No.1 & 2 in the 1^st week of the month of August, 2016 came at the premises of the complainant at Sarsa and demanded the installment of the vehicle. The complainants are totally unaware about the terms and conditions agreed between Jagmal and OP No.3. The complainant showed their inability in arranging the payment of alleged installments and asked Ops No.1 & 2 that they are not in a position to make the payment of installments, upon which Ops No.1 & 2 threatened the complainants that in case the payment of loan amount is not made, the vehicle in question would be seized off/captured by them for want of loan installments. The complainants under the fear on account of seizing the vehicle borrowed the amount from their relatives and pay Rs.70,000/- to Ops No.1 & 2 under protest. The Ops No.1 & 2 under threat and duress extort Rs.70,000/- from the complainants forcibly and illegally and violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to refund Rs.70,000/- along with bonus and interest etc., to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared. OPs No.1,2 & 4 contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the matter in dispute between the parties is out of a written contract/commercial agreement for the purchase of commercial vehicle and the relationship between the complainant and Ops is that of parties to the contract and the dispute regarding the same does not cover under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; that the relationship of deceased Jagmal Singh is governed by the written contract entered in between the complainant and HDB Financial Service. There are various terms and conditions embodied in the written contract and the matter in issue is with respect of contractual obligation of both the parties which cannot be heard arbitrarily; that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; that the complainant has got financed a commercial vehicle and executed a loan/hypothecation commercial agreement No.368050 dated 28.2.2013; that deceased husband of complainant was insured by Op No.3 that the answering OP has received an amount of Rs.62,871/- dated 4.8.2016 from Op No.3 and the same was adjusted in the loan account of Jagmal Singh and after adjusting the insurance amount mentioned above, an amount of Rs.72,440/- and out of the same an amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited in the loan account of Jagmal and an amount of Rs.2440/- was waived off; so the complaint may kindly be dismissed qua answering OPs. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            OP No.3 also contested the complaint by filing separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections to the effect that the whole matter is concerned with Op No.1 and just on the request of complainant the answering OP advised the complainant for completing the requirements required by Op No.1; that the complainant has not fulfilled the formalities as required as per rules of OP No.1; that the complainant was advised many times by the answering OP to get the consent of the daughter-in-law i.e. Reena Devi (who is registered nominee in the record of OP No.1) as well as minor child of deceased Lakhwinder Singh i.e. son of the complainant or to get the succession order from the competent court but the complainants have not done any needful till date.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The contents of the complaint were denied. Preliminary objections were repeated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.           On the other hand, the Ops No.1, 2 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  The Op No.3 tendered into evidence documents Ex.O1 & Ex.O2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

8.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival submissions of both the parties, it is clear that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 & 3 namely Sh. Jagmal Singh (since deceased) purchased the truck in question from Metro Motors Private Ltd. on finance basis through Ops No.1 & 2 and got insured the same with the Op No.3 vide policy “Credit Shield Insurance” valid w.e.f. 14.03.2013 to 13.02.2017.  As per the said policy in case, the owner of vehicle expired, the insurance company would be liable to make the remaining installments of the vehicle to the extent of outstanding loan amount.  Sh. Jagmal Singh died in a road side accident on 07.05.2016 as is clear from the death certificate, Ex.C11 placed on the file.  The grievance of the complainants is that after the death of Sh. Jagmal Singh, the complainants paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the Ops No.1 & 2 under protest and the said amount was to be paid by Op No.3 to Ops No.1 & 2, so, they prayed for refund of said amount.  We have perused the statement of account, Ex.R2, wherein it is clear that the Ops No.1, 2 & 4 received the amount of Rs.62,871/- on 04.08.2016 from the Op No.3 and then they again received the amount of Rs.70,000/- on 09.08.2016.  Hence, the Ops No.1, 2 & 4 are deficient while rendering services to the complainants. 

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint against Ops No.1, 2 & 4  and direct the Op No.1, 2 & 4  to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant No.1 and further to pay Rs.11,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  However, it is clear that the Ops No.1, 2 & 4 can receive the balance amount, if any, from the Op No.3.  The Ops No.1, 2 & 4 are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant No.1 shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its payment.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:22.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.