Orissa

Jajapur

CC/96/2015

Sarat Kumar Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hindu Leyland Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.N.Panda

05 Jan 2018

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                                   Dated the 5^th day of January,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.96 of 2015

Sarat kumar Barik   S/O  Hemanta kumar Barik   

At. Bayanbenapur

P.O/,P.S. Bhandari pokhari

Dist.Bhadrak                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Hinduja Ley land Finance  Ltd, Corporate office ,167/169 ,3^rd floor

Annasalai,Saidapet, Chennai.

2.Hinduja Ley land Finance Ltd, Chorda Bye pass Road,

At/P.O.Jajpur Road, Dist.jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                   Sri B.N.Panda,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2                  Sri S. ch.Pradhan, P.K.Dhal, Advocates 

                                                                                                 Date of order:   05.01.2018.

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER   .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The fact relevant as per complaint petition  is that  the petitioner being  a poor person for maintaining  his livelihood and his family  purchased a Mini commercial vehicle bearing No.OD-04-D-7625 taking financial assistance of Rs.3,60,,000/-from the O.Ps  on the strength of an hypothecation agreement. As per term and condition of the agreement the loan amount along with interest shall be repaid within 48 nos.  of equal EMI.

            That after entering  into an agreement with the O.Ps the petitioner received the vehicle with insurance cover of  Tata AIG vide policy No.0153154107 and total premium of Rs.20,011/- has been  paid by the petitioner and the financer handed over the Insurance policy to the petitioner. That as per terms of agreement the petitioner paid the EMI regularly to the O.Ps and authorized him  to paid the insurance premium  in time till provide the NOC to the petitioner and accordingly  the EMI has been fixed including the insurance premium and registration charges. That due to slight delay to pay the EMI the petitioner also paid Rs. 62,005/  to the O.P on dt.29.7.15  with DPC . Similarly   the O.Ps taken  custody of  D.D -1 keys , 2. Form no.21, 3.Invoice certificate , 4. Insurance certificate,  5. Delivery gate pass 6. Agreement paper etc at the time of delivery of the vehicle.  

            It is pertinent to mention  here that there is no scope  of the petitioner to pay  separate Insurance premium  till received the NOC of the above vehicle.  Therefore the petitioner requested the O.Ps before expiry of Insurance Policy for renewal of the same  and the O.Ps assured to do  the  Insurance very soon .In the mean time  the vehicle met with an accident at Manpur Chhak and the crowed set fire the vehicle on the road and the vehicle is totally  destroyed on 4.10.15 . Thereafter the petitioner rushed to  the O.P’s  office but neither they co-operate  nor release  the Insurance paper and due to their gross negligence  , the petitioner has  suffered irreparable loss  and sustained injury which  can not be compensated in terms of money .  Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the payer to direct the O.Ps to pay the damaged cost of the vehicle with interest.

            After notice  the O.P entered  appearance and subsequently filed their written version  taking following stands:

That the present complaint is not maintainable in eye of law. Hence is liable to be rejected prima facie on the ground of written version  raised by the O.ps. The O.Ps prays  the issue of maintainability of the complaint petition  ifself be decided as a preliminary issue before going  into merits  of the case. The O.ps are the finance companies not the Insurance company .The O.Ps duty is to financé the vehicle but the insurance  company duty is to investigate  the accident claim and process claim accordingly. As the O.Ps  have  financed   the vehicle of the captioned customer  his duty is to co-ordinate with  the customer and Insurance company   for the Insurance . In the mean time for payment of the Insurance premium the petitioner defaulted and paid  the defaulted amount in the last day  of the expiry date and not submitted all his documents accordingly. The objection raised by the O.Ps as follows ;

            The O.Ps is neither in fault nor responsible for  petitioner  gross mistake and fault.  The  O.P communicated to the petitioner for  payment of arrear  dues as well   as submission of  1^st years original  Insurance policy  paper  and RC book  for Insurance renewal on  13.07,15 as per agrrement. The petitioner never  responded to the same and violated  article -12  as well as article -2-10  of the agreement for which the O.P  could not able  to submit the  required  documents before Insurance office for renewal of the policy  of the vehicle .  The present petitioner  without any cause of action has  filed dispute  against the O.P .  Therefore the same is  liable to be dismissed.

            The O.P. submits that the present  complaints  is false ,fictitious ,    baseless and is a malafied attempt  on  the part of the petitioner for unlawful  and unjust  enrichment .That the O.P  submits that they have received all the articles stated by the petitioner but received the Xerox copy of insurance paper which is not acceptable for renewal  without the original one .The O.P communicated  to the petitioner for payment of arrear dues as well as submission of 1^st year original  Insurance policy paper and RC  book for Insurance renewal    on 13.07.15  as per  the agreement,  but the petitioner never  responded  to the same and violated  Article -12 as well as Article - 2 – 10 of the agreement  for which the O.P could not be able to submit the required documents before the Insurance authority for renewal of the Insurance policy of the vehicle. The petitioner  is without any cause of action against the O.P and  is therefore  the case is  liable to  be dismissed.

            On the date of hearing we perused the record along with documents in details and observed that

1.It is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the above cited commercial vehicle with the financial assistance of the O.Ps.

2.It is also undisputed fact that the 1^st insurance was done by the financer which  covers  from 14.07.14 to  13.07.15.

3 .It is also a fact that there is some defaulted outstanding against the petitioner and  subsequently after receiving the letter from the O.Ps  on dt. 11.7.15 and 13.7.15 regarding defaulted EMI the petitioner deposited the same of Rs. 62,005/- on dt. 29.7.15

5.The plea taken by the O.Ps  regarding the 1^st year original  Insurance policy bond and RC book for renewal of the insurance policy is not sustainable as per law. Because it is the settled principle of law  the Xerox copy of the above documents obtained before the ops when the vehicle is under hypothecation  and the policy can be renewed by production of the same .

            Hence it is our considered view thus  the O.Ps have committed patent deficiency  of  service  and unfair trade practice in  not renewing  the Insurance policy of the above vehicle after receipt of  the defaulted money from the petitioner on 29 july 2015 and the vehicle  has been set fire on

4.10.15 Accordingly it is the mandatory duty of the O.Ps  to insure the vehicle after receipt   of  the insured premium from the petitioner .

Hence this Order

            The case is disposed of on contest against the O.Ps . The O.Ps are directed to pay the petitioner the  assessed value  of the vehicle within two months  hence  after receipt of the order, as we arrived at the conclusion that it is a case of   total loss .  No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of January,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.