DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.        :    51 of 09.06.2022

Date of Decision                     :    29.11.2022

Joginder Singh S/O Swaran Singh, R/O Vill: Balowal, Tehsil: Banga, District: S.B.S. Nagar                                                              ….Complainant

Versus

1. Inderjit Marwaha Auto {s} Pvt. Ltd; GT Road, Opp. JCT Mills, Phagwara through its Manager
2. Sundram Finance Ltd; Fifth Floor, 43 & 44, City Square Building, EH 197, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Manager
3. Sundram Finance Ltd; Regd; Office No:21, Patullos Road, Chennai through its General Manager
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd; B-39, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi -110001, through its Branch Manager
5. IDBI Bank Ltd; Branch Mukandpur Road, Banga, Distt: S.B.S.Nagar through its Branch Manager
6. Marhwaha Autos, GT Road, Opp. JCT Mills, Phagwara through its Manager/Authorized Signatory
7. Inderjit Marwaha Auto {s} Pvt Ltd; GT Road, Jalandhar Phagwara Highway, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Signatory
8. United India Insurance Company Ltd; Nawanshahr through its Branch Manager

          …Opposite Parties

          Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.YADWINDER PAL S BAATH, MEMBER

MRS.RENU GANDHI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                       :         Sh.Manish Dogra, Advocate

For OP No.1 to 3 & 6              :         Ex parte

For Op No.4&8                       :         Sh.SS Kundra, Advocate

For Op No.5                                      :         Sh.MP Nayyar, Advocate

ORDER

PER SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. In this complaint, the complainant alleged that complainant is agriculturist by profession and do not know about despoilment of the private finance companies. The complainant is not much educated person. The complainant is owner of vehicle / car make - Maruti Swift ZXI+BS-VI of Maker – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd; bearing registration No: PB-78-A-9088. complainant was in need of personal vehicle for his use. In the month of December 2020; the complainant was contacted by the officials of Op No: 1 and they advised to the complainant to buy car make - Maruti Swift ZXI+BS-VI of Maker – Maruti Suzuki India Ltd;. But at that time, the complainant was in shortage of money. Then, the officials of Op No:1 advised to get finance his vehicle from the Op No:2 and 3 as the Op No:2 & 3 is good finance company and it is charging 6% per annum as rate of interest on reducing loan amount and the Op No:2 is used to charge interest on a reducing balance outstanding of loan amount and the interest rate is calculated on the outstanding loan amount and on a monthly basis, after payment of EMIs and the Op No: 2 and 3 never used to overcharge anything. The officials of the Op No:1 showed rosy pictures and golden dreams and the complainant fell in the sweet temptations of the Ops and the Ops also assured and promised to the complainant, if any problem be arisen, they are here and will solve the problem of complainant. As such on the instigation the complainant agreed to buy the car of make - Maruti Swift ZXI+BS-VI from Op No:1 and the Op No:1 also get financed the car of the complainant with the Op No:2 and 3. The said vehicle is registered with the Registering Authority, Banga at bearing registration no:PB-78-A-9088. Op No:2 and 3 have financed a loan/granted the loan of Rs.6,50,000/- to purchase the said vehicle. It was settled that the complainant has to pay the said Loan amount in 60 Equated monthly installment of Rs.14,070/- per month. Complainant is having his saving account with the Op No:5 and the EMI of said loan was linked up under ECS with the bank account of complainant with the Op No:5 by the Op No:2 & 3.    At time of purchasing of said vehicle, the Op No:1  have issued the insurance policy of the aforesaid vehicle in question with the Op No:4 & 8 and the said vehicle of complainant is fully insured with the Op No: 4 & 8 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd; for the period from 03-12-2020 to 02-12-2021. At time of handing over of vehicle in question, the complainant was informed that the vehicle in question is fully insured with the Op No: 4 & 8 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd; and it will cover all kinds of accidents and damages of the vehicle in question. On 24.11.2021, the complainant was going for his some work on his car being driven by Avtar Singh S/O Ajit Singh. The said Avtar Singh used to drive the car very carefully after obeying all the rules of traffic and he is also holder of valid and effective valid licence. Suddenly, a cow came in front of car near petrol pump, Dosanj Kalan {Phagwara Road via Muknadpur} and in order to save the life of cow, the said car fallen in cannel, resultant which there is total loss of the car as fully damaged in accident. In the said accident, the complainant and the said Avtar Singh also got many injuries.  Op No:6 is unit of Op No:1 & the Op No:7. After accident, the car in question was submitted with the Op No:6 which is related to Op No:1 and the matter was informed to the Op No:2 and the Op No: 4 & 8 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd;. It was also verbally requested to the Op No:2 not claim any installment as vehicle in question has been totally damaged and the Op No: 2 assured to the complainant that the Op will not charge any kind of interest on loan outstanding amount and EMI be suspend & the complainant can adjust his loan outstanding after receiving claimed amount i.e. the insured declared value of vehicle in question from the O No: 4 and 8. The complainant requested to Op No:1, 6 and 7 to return his vehicle, but the Ops have refused to admit the claim of complainant and On dated:29-12-2021, the Op No:1, 6 and 7 demanded Rs.5,000/- to return the totally damaged vehicle of complainant and even though, the vehicle in question was totally damaged and beyond repair, the Op No:1, 6 & 7 have unlawfully charged Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and under the compelling  circumstances, the complainant has to pay the same and the Op No:6 issued bill as charges of painting charges unlawfully. Since the vehicle in question was totally damaged and beyond repair, the charging of Rs.5,000/- on account of painting charges by Op No:1, 6 and 7 are against principle of natural justice. Moreover, the Ops have never painted any part of the vehicle in question.  The claim of insurance has been lodged with the Op No:4 and 8 – United India Insurance Company Ltd. But the Op No: Op No:4 and 8 – United India Insurance Company Ltd has failed to release claim amount to the complainant till date, so that he may adjust his outstanding loan amount alongwith interest up-to-date.  As per insurance policy, the insured declared value of vehicle in question is Rs.7,06,705/-.    The complainant requested to the Op No:2 not charge any installment and also requested to cancel the ECS as linked to account of complainant with the Op No:5 and not to charge any interest and recalculate the interest on the loan amount and its actual outstanding amount as due and not to charge any interest. But the Op No: 2 and 3 have refused to admit the claim of complainant and they are adamant to charge Rs.1,94,285/- as interest past, present and future. Since, the vehicle in question has fully damaged, the Op No: 2 and 3 have no right to charge future interest. The Ops can charge interest only on outstanding amount of loan up-to-date till the date of its adjustment.  Op No: 2 and 3 have also deducted the installment from the account of complainant in the month of December 2021, January 2022, and February 2022. But the Op No: 2 and 3 intend to charge entire future amount of future interest from the complainant. The Op No:2 and 3 have no right to claim future interest from the complainant. The Ops are also threatening to foreclosure charges from the complainant qua the loan account for which they have no right to do so as the vehicle in question has fully damaged. The complainant has verbally requested to the Op No:2 and 3 to provide him provide copy of loan agreement and sanction letter and loan application, but the Ops have refused to admit the lawful claim of complainant and blankly/flatly refused to supply the said documents.   In this way, due to said unlawful act of the opposite parties, the complainants have suffered a great mental agony, physically harassment and monetary loss. As such, the opposite parties are very deficient in services.   The opposite parties have failed to render their services to the complainant, for which the Opposite parties are duty bond to provide the same. By doing this unlawful act, the opposite parties have breached the terms and conditions of the fair trade practice.  Lastly, prayer has been made that Op No:1, 6 and 7 be directed to refund Rs.5,000/- {as charged by them unlawfully} alongwith interest from the date of its receipt till the date of its realization to the complainant.  The Op No: 4 & 8 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd; be directed to release the payment of claimed amount / the insured declared value of vehicle i.e. Rs.7,06,705/- alongwith interest of the vehicle in question. The Op No: 2 and 3 be directed to recalculate the interest as per actual outstanding of loan after adjusting the EMI as paid by the complainant and not to charge alleged future interest and foreclosure charges / other charges from the complainant and further, be directed to provide copy of loan agreement and sanction letter to the complainant. The Op No:1 to 4 and the Op No: 6 to 8 may kindly be also burdened with Rs.2,00,000/- as a damages for mental agony and monetary loss as suffered by the complainant and loss to livelihood to the complainant and the Ops also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as spent by him to meet with necessary legal expenditures
2. Upon notice, Op No.4&8 has appeared through counsel and contested the complaint, by submitting that complainant’s vehicle No.PB78A-9088 met with an alleged accident and was put in for repair.  Said vehicle was insured with answering OP with policy No.0428003120P109992203, intimation was sent by car dealer, survey of vehicle was done, due to damage and repair cost was more than the value of car, it was offered that the vehicle may be written off, the values of vehicle as per IDV was calculated offered as 706705 and salvage value with RC was calculated at 3,15,000/-.  Complainant agreed to the same and gave his duly attested affidavit from the office of executive magistrate Banga agreeing and accepting that the car is beyond repair as it is badly damaged due to accident.  Further, he agreed and consented for full and final settlement of vehicle claim on “net of salvage basis” for Rs.391705/- with RC book.  Complainant accordingly consented for processing.  Thereafter claim was processed in time and again complainant was requested to provide NOC from his financier and bank details for making NEFT/RTGS payment.  However, in spite of repeated request the complainant not provided both the details.  After numerous communications, registered letter on 19.04.2022 was sent to complainant requesting him to immediately provide the said documents, but complainant failed to do so, left with no option to complaint claim file was closed.  On merits, other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. OP No.5 has also appeared through counsel and contested the complaint, by submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the Op No: 5– IDBI Bank Ltd. to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is liable to be dismissed against the answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd;. The dispute is between the complainant and the Op No1 to 4 and the Op No:6 to 8. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd. The answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd has never committed any act of unfair trade practice. There is no harassment of complainant at the end of answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd. That the complainant is having his saving account with the answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd and the complainant has submitted an application to cancel the NACH Mandate with the answering Op No:5 –IDBI Bank Ltd and same has been canceled. The email regarding cancelation of NACH Mandate as received from the concerned department of Bank. On merits, other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, parties produced their evidence on the file.
5. We have gone through the record carefully. 
6. During arguments, the contentions of learned counsel for parties are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same.  The main grievance of the complainant is that OP No.4&8 have failed to settle the claim towards the vehicle in question.  The complainant has also prayed the Commission to suspend his payment of EMI to the OP No.2&3 till claim of the complainant is settled by Op No.4&8.  Complainant has also alleged that Op No. 1,6&7 charged a bill of Rs.5000/- illegally towards the painting charges whereas the vehicle has been a total loss. 
7. On perusal of the records i.e. Ex.R-2, it is observed that Op No.4&8 are prepared to settle the claim of the complainant subject to the submission of account details of the complainant and also on production of NOC from the Op No.2&3, which is a finance company who provided loan to the complainant.  We have also perused Ex.R-1 enclosed by Op No.4&8 which is an affidavit obtained by Op No.4&8 from the complainant which speaks about the modalities of the settlement of claim.  We hereby reproduce the relevant portion of the affidavit of complainant:- “That I promise to abide by the terms and condition of the Insurance Company & giving consent for full and final settlement of my car claim on “Net of Salvage Basis” for Rs.3,91,705/- Less Excess Clause of Rs.1,000/- i.e. Rs.3,90,705/- with RC Book which will be paid by the insurance company”.  In the said affidavit, nowhere it is mentioned that complainant needs to produce the NOC from the Op No.2&3 is required to be produced.  Moreover, OP No.2&3 has preferred to proceed ex parte.  This act of Op No.2&3 draws on adverse inference against it.  The non-appearance of the Op No.2&3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defense against the alleged allegation made by the complainant.  Therefore, the assertion of the complainant go un-rebutted and uncontroverted.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that as the insurance has been obtained by the complainant and who has paid the insurance premium towards the insurance of the vehicle in question, hence Op No.4&8 are duty bound to settle the claim of the complainant.  By not settling the legitimate claim of the complainant the Op No.4&8 are deficient in providing services and also have indulged in unfair trade practice.  Moreover, Op No.1,6&7 have also preferred to proceed ex parte.  This act of said OPs draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of the Op No.1,6&7 shows that it has nothing to say in its defense against the alleged allegation made by the complainant.  Therefore, the assertion of the complainant go un-rebutted and uncontroverted.  On perusal Ex.C-8, it is observed that Op No.1,6&7 have charged Rs.5000/- towards painting of the vehicle in question.  With regard to charging of Rs.5000/- towards the painting of the vehicle in question as per Ex.C-8, we fail to understand as to why the necessity arose for the painting of the said vehicle as it was declared total loss by the insurance company.  The Op No.1,6&7 have failed to produce on record any documentary evidence with regard to any request made by the complainant for painting of the said total loss vehicle in question.  As such, Op No.1,6&7 are found to be involved in unfair trade practice and required to refund the said money charged to the complainant.  The complaint qua Op No.2,3&5 is dismissed as no deficiency is observed against them. 
8. In view of the above said fact and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed with the following directions:  (1) Op No.4&8 are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within a period of one month after the account details are provided by the complainant (2) OP No.1,6&7 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint.  (3)  Op No.4&8 also directed to pay Rs.5000/- for harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Further, Op No.2&3 did not appear and it deemed that OPs No.2&3 accepted the claim of the complainant under this complaint and as such Op No.2&3 are directed not to recover interest after declaration of total damages of the vehicle in question and will only recover principal amount after the date of accident and issue no objection certification/No Due Certificate, on receipt of balance payment, if any.       
9. The entire compliance of aforesaid order be made by said OPs within the period of 45 days from the date of certified copy of this order.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
11. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  29.11.2022

                   (Kuljit Singh)

                       President

(Renu Gandhi)                        (Yadwinder Pal S Baath)

Member                                   Member