Haryana

Kaithal

238/19

Kelo Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Egro Gen Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.D Sharma

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.238/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 13.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:18.07.2023.

1. Kelo Devi age 57 years widow of Sh. Dalbir Singh son of Sh. Fateh Singh, resident of Village Pega, District Jind.
2. Sandeep Kumar age 31 years son of Sh. Dalbir Singh, son of Sh. Fateh Singh, resident of Village Pega, District Jind.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.237, 2^nd Floor, Sector-12, Karnal (Haryana).
2. H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager/Authorized Representative HDFC Bank, Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
3. HDFC Bank Limited, Pehowa Chowk, Karnal Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

         

Present:     Sh. R.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                OP No.2 exparte.

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Adv. for the OP No.3.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Kelo Devi and Sandeep Kumar-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

1.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that Sh. Dalbir Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2, purchased a new Cratea Car, Model, 2018, Engine No.D4BJM555382 bearing registration No.HR-31P-8983 from L.R.Hyundai, Kaithal in the month of June, 2018 after getting the same financed from HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.  It is further alleged that an Auto Loan of Rs.7,26,261/- was provided by OP No.3 to aforesaid Dalbir Singh, which was payable in 60 monthly installments since 05.07.2018 to 05.06.2023.  It is further alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was got insured from New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kaithal.  OPs No.1 to 3 further provided Sarav Suraksha Plus Policy to aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh over the aforesaid vehicle loan vide master policy No.2999201363863003, certificate No.2950202232045200000 and charged an amount of Rs.6761/- from aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh.  It is further alleged that aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh was unfortunately died on 23.01.2019 and during his life time, he made the payment of 6 installments to the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.15,076/- each total Rs.90,456/- since July, 2018 to January, 2019.  As per the terms and conditions of Sarav Suraksha Plus Policy provided to said Sh. Dalbir Singh, a credit shield was provided and accordingly, in case of death of policy-holder, the balance installments were not required to be paid by the heirs of the policy-holder.  After the death of Sh. Dalbir Singh, the complainants duly intimated this fact to OPs No.1 & 2 but inspite of the said fact, the OP No.3 has deducted the monthly installment of February, 2019 to July, 2019 and are not ready to waive off the balance loan installments.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 3 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 11.11.2019.  OPs No.1 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  In the written version, OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint of complainant is pre-mature because the complainant did not lodge/register any claim with the answering OP and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the answering OP.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP because the complainants themselves never lodged any claim with the answering OP and also never submitted any documents towards processing of claim.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.3 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; time-barred; that Dalbir Singh availed Auto loan of Rs.7,26,261/- from the answering OP vide loan account No.57313935; that HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company is a separate entity from answering OP bank; that as per request of Dalbir Singh for getting Sarv Suraksha Policy, loanee/Dalbir Singh routed towards HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.  Accordingly, Dalbir Singh has taken the policy in question.  HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. is a channel partner of HDFC Bank Ltd., however, it is a separate entity; that the answering OP bank branch has no record or concern about issuance of insurance policy or process of insurance claim etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-A to Annexure-P and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2, OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

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

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainants has argued that Sh. Dalbir Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2, purchased a new Cratea Car, Model, 2018, Engine No.D4BJM555382 bearing registration No.HR-31P-8983 from L.R.Hyundai, Kaithal in the month of June, 2018 after getting the same financed from HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.  It is further argued that an Auto Loan of Rs.7,26,261/- was provided by OP No.3 to aforesaid Dalbir Singh, which was payable in 60 monthly installments since 05.07.2018 to 05.06.2023.  It is further argued that the aforesaid vehicle was got insured from New India Assurance Company Ltd., Kaithal.  OPs No.1 to 3 further provided Sarav Suraksha Plus Policy to aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh over the aforesaid vehicle loan vide master policy No.2999201363863003, certificate No.2950202232045200000 and charged an amount of Rs.6761/- from aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh.  It is further argued that aforesaid Sh. Dalbir Singh was unfortunately died on 23.01.2019 and during his life time, he made the payment of 6 installments to the OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.15,076/- each total Rs.90,456/- since July, 2018 to January, 2019.  As per the terms and conditions of Sarav Suraksha Plus Policy provided to said Sh. Dalbir Singh, a credit shield was provided and accordingly, in case of death of policy-holder, the balance installments were not required to be paid by the heirs of the policy-holder.  After the death of Sh. Dalbir Singh, the complainants duly intimated this fact to OPs No.1 & 2 but inspite of the said fact, the OP No.3 has deducted the monthly installment of February, 2019 to July, 2019 and are not ready to waive off the balance loan installments.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the complaint of complainants is pre-mature because the complainants did not lodge/register any claim with the OP No.1 and without registration of any claim, the complainants cannot claim any compensation from the  OP No.1.  It is further argued that no intimation regarding death of Sh. Dalbir Singh was ever received in the office of OP No.1.

9.             Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company is a separate entity from OP bank.  It is further argued that as per request of Dalbir Singh for getting Sarv Suraksha Policy, loanee/Dalbir Singh routed towards HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.  Accordingly, Dalbir Singh has taken the policy in question.  It is further argued that HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. is a channel partner of HDFC Bank Ltd., however, it is a separate entity.

10.            We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  The grievance of the complainants is that as per the terms and conditions of Sarav Suraksha Plus Policy provided to Sh. Dalbir Singh (since deceased), in case of death of policy-holder, the balance installments of laon were not required to be paid by the legal heirs of the policy-holder.  We have perused the policy “Sarv Suraksha as per Annexure-G/Annexure-R3, wherein in the column of Coverage Details, it is mentioned as under:-

Coverage	Premium	Sum Insured
Loss of Job (3 EMI)	473	1,00,000/-
Accidental Death	547	5,00,000/-
Permanent Total Disability/Permanent Partial Disability	729	5,00,000/-
Accidental Hospitalization	365	1,00,000/-
Critical Illness	1276	1,00,000/-
Credit Shield Insurance	912	5,00,000/-
Garage Cash	821	3500/-
Householders Coverage	607	1,50,000/-

                                 

                So, from the aforesaid policy in question, it is clear that the loan of Rs.7,26,261/- was not got insured by Dalbir Singh (since deceased) from the OP No.1-insurance company.  Moreover, the complainants did not lodge/register any claim with the OP No.1 and without registration of any claim, the complainants cannot claim any compensation from the OP No.1 and they also did not give any intimation regarding death of Dalbir Singh in the office of OP No.1.  Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:18.07.2023.

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.