Haryana

Karnal

CC/116/2018

Indro Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kamboj

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                     Complaint no.116/2018

                                                     Date of instt. 15.5.2018

                                                     Date of decision 11.06.2019

 

Indro Devi widow of Shri Jaswant Singh resident of village Ballah, District Karnal. Adhar no.988052970248.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company 6^th floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (E) Mumbai-400059.

2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

3. HDF Bank Ltd. SCO no.778-779, opposite Mahavir Dal Hospital, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its branch Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:     Sh. Jaswant Singh………..President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

               

 

 Present:  Shri Amit Kamboj Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Sanjeev Vohra Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   Shri Amit Munjal Advocate OP no.3.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER: 

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that Shri Jaswant Singh husband of the complainant has borrowed a Car/Auto Loan amounting to Rs.3,65,622/- from the OPs and the said loan amount was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.9185/-. After sanctioning the aforesaid loan amount the husband of the complainant had purchased on Maruti WagonR VXI Car bearing Registration no/RH40-F-5111. The husband of the complainant repaying the loan installment regularly as per the repayment schedule and he has paid the regular installment and the remaining installments is still due towards the complainant. At the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount the OPs also issued a Master Insurance Policy(Sarav Surakahs) bearing policy no.2999201363863000 in the name of the husband of the complainant and had received a premium of Rs.5622/- in which it is clearly mentioned that the policy covers critical illness amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of insurance the official of the OP also told that during the pendency of the loan if the borrower dies then the pending loan installments would waived off/stop and the loan would also be waived off and the legal heir of the borrowers deceased would not liable to pay the remaining loan installments. On 19.12.2017 the husband of the complainant suffered serious critical disease and due to this the husband of the complainant had died on 19.12.2017. After the death of husband of the complainant remaining loan amount automatically waived off and the complainant is not liable to pay the loan installments, rather the complainant being nominee/legal heir of deceased is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of Critical deceased. After the death of the deceased complainant approached the OP and requested to waive off the remaining loan installment and to issue the clearance certificate and also requested to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of critical illness as per the insurance policy issued by the OP. The official of the OP inspite of accepting the genuine request of the complainant put pressured upon her to pay the loan installment first thereafter they would consider the request of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant deposited the two loan installments under pressure which is totally illegally, arbitrary and against the terms of the insurance policy. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application on 11.01.2018 upon the OPs requesting thereby to waive off the remaining loan installment and to issue the clearance certificate and also requested to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-but official of the OPs has taken no action on the application of the complainant. In view of above facts it is clearly goes to prove that the OPs by illegally snatching the vehicle of the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to the present complaint is pre-mature and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had failed to submit required documents which are very necessary for process of claim. OPs no.1 and 1 issued several reminder letters to the insured dated 20.01.2018, 25.01.2018, 07.02.2018 to submit the necessary documents in order to process the claim effectively. That despite multiple reminders, the complainant failed to submit the required documents to the OPs. Therefore, the claim was closed due to non-submission of documents and the same was communicated to the complainant, vide closure letter dated 22.02.2018. It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of insurance policy, the outstanding loan amount is payable under the category of Credit Shield under the policy. The benefit under the category of Credit Shield are given only when death of the insured is due to accident. It is also pleaded that the benefit under critical illness is given only if the Critical Illness, as specified under the policy, first manifests itself during the Policy Period and the insured survives for a minimum of 30 days from the date of diagnoses. The diagnosed ailment also has to fall under the scope of Critical illness provided under the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi; maintainability; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file and maintain the present complaint; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the loan amount, installment, repayment and registration of vehicle, terms and conditions of insurance described by the complainant is between complainant and OPs no.1 and 2 interse. OP no.3 has legal right to recover his payment outstanding in due course of law from the legal heirs as after the death of hirer LR are liable to pay the outstanding amount due towards OP. It is further pleaded that Jaswant Singh after understanding the terms and conditions executed the loan agreement with OP company had obtained a loan of Rs.3,65,622/- for purchasing vehicle Maruti WagonR VXI and said loan has to repay in 48 installments of Rs.9185/- starting from 07.11.2016 and ends on 7.10.2020. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 and OP no.3 are two different companies and identities and are having their separate business. OP no.1 had not repaid the remaining loan amount and as such OP no.3 is still entitled for the balance amount either it would be paid by complainant or by the OPs no.1 and 2. Since the balance amount of loan was not paid and as such there was no other option with the OP no.3 to recover in due course of law. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 10.1.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal Ex.RW/A and documents Ex.Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed the evidence on 21.05.2019. OP no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Kandhari, Deputy Manager Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 22.04.2019.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant had borrowed a car loan amounting to Rs.3,65,622/- from the OPs and said loan was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.9185/-. At the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan amount the OPs also issued a Master Insurance Policy and received a premium of Rs.5622/-, in which it was clearly mentioned that the policy covers critical illness amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. Official of the OPS also told that during the pendency of the loan if the borrower dies then the pending loan would waived off. On 19.12.2017 the husband of the complainant died. As per Sarv Suraksha Insurance Policy issued by the OPs, after the death of loanee the remaining loan amount automatically waived off and complainant is not liable to pay the remaining loan installment, rather the complainant being nominee/legal heir of deceased, is entitled for sum of Rs.one lakh on account of critical disease.

8.             Further, after the death of deceased complainant approached the OPs and requested to waive off the remaining loan and to issue the clearance certificate and also requested to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-on account of critical illness as per insurance policy. But now OPs with the help of recovery boys is bent upon to snatch the vehicle forcibly and illegally for which they have got no right.

9.             On the other hand, case of the OPs no.1 and 2 are that no document in support of the claim was submitted by the complainant due to which OPs no.1 and 2 were not able to decide the claim on merits. The claim of the complainant has never been rejected but has been closed due to non-receipt of documents from the complainant.

10.            The case of the OP no.3 is that OP has legal right to recover his payment outstanding in due course of law from the legal heirs as after the death of loanee LR are liable to pay the outstanding amount due towards OP no.3. The OP no.1 has not repaid the remaining loan amount and as such the OP no.3 is still entitled for the balance amount either if would be paid by the complainant or by OP no.1.

11.            Admittedly, the husband of the complainant had taken a car loan from the OP no.3. It is also admitted that OPs no.1 and 2 had issued a Master Insurance Policy (Sarv Surkahs) to the deceased and had received a premium of Rs.5622/-. As per version of the OPs no.1 and 2 the claim of the complainant has never been rejected but has been closed due to non-submission of documents from the complainant. Thus, we are of the firm views that at this stage OPs are not deficiency in service.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we dispose off the present complaint with the directions to complainant to submit the documents as demanded by the OPs no.1 and 2 within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order and thereafter OPs no.1 and 2 are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the documents. OP no3 is directed not to snatch the vehicle in question till the settlement of the claim of the complainant by OPs no.1 and 2. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:11.06.2019               

                                                       

                                                                   President,

                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

                        (Vineet Kaushik)         

                         Member