DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/218

Date of Institution   : 27.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 16.08.2022

 

Dilbag Singh aged about 42 years son of Sh. Piara Singh resident of Four Field, G.T. Road, Opposite I.T.B.P. Camp, Tehsil and District Amirtsar.  

                 …Complainant Versus

Indusind Bank, Mall Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager. 

              …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

 

Present: Sh. Vishu Bhatti Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Aman Prashar Adv counsel for O.P.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member 

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER, PRESIDENT): 

 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against Indusind Bank, Mall Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager (hereinafter referred as opposite party).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dilbag Singh had purchased one Maruti New Swift Dezire bearing registration No. PB02-CT-0841 in the month of August 2015 and the loan on the car was got sanctioned from the opposite party. It is further alleged that at the time of purchasing the car from the agency of Jay Cee motors situated at 100 Ft. Road, Amritsar, insurance of the vehicle was also got done from the said agency for a period of one year and on the basis of the loan, the complainant started making payment of installment to the tune of Rs. 14,730/- per month and even 7/8 blank signed cheques were also taken as a security from the complainant. It is alleged that about 4/5 months back, the complainant received one phone call from the official of opposite party that the payment of insurance of the vehicle in question is pending and told the complainant to make the payment of insurance amount of the vehicle immediately but the complainant after listening all this got very tense because the complainant never asked the opposite party for getting the vehicle in question insured nor the complainant has ever executed any document for the purpose of executing any insurance contract between the complainant and the opposite party regarding the vehicle in question. Even the complainant has not handed over any document like copy of RC or copy of previous insurance or copy of any identity proof to the opposite party to get his vehicle insured. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the opposite party and also got the statement of account and shocked that the amount of Rs. 18,006/- has been charged to the loan account of the complainant without the consent and without the knowledge of complainant. The opposite party put the name of the complainant in the Sibel list without the consent and against the wish of the complainant and the opposite party declared the complainant as defaulter by mentioning the name of the complainant in the Sibel report. The complainant lodged a complaint to the opposite party for their misdeed as well as deficiency in service and the same was duly received by the opposite party vide endorsement dated 12.3.2018. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and run the complainant from pillar to post. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To remove the unnecessary charges of the insurance amount of Rs. 18,006/- as well as penal interest from the loan account of the complainant and to remove the name of the complainant from the Sibel Report got entered on the direction of the opposite party.  

ii)To pay Rs. 50,000/-  as compensation for mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of complaint is just an abuse on the process of law, act and conduct, suppressing of material facts, complaint is devoid of any cause of action etc. On merits, it is submitted that the insurance of the vehicle in question has been done by the replying opposite party as per the clause 13.3. of the loan agreement duly executed by the complainant. It is further alleged that it is the duty of the complainant to insure the vehicle which is hypothecated with the Bank and otherwise too it is illegal to ply any vehicle on the road without insuring the vehicle and the complainant has not done insurance of the vehicle at his own. All other allegations of the complaint are denied. As such there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

4. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.    

5. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party filed affidavit of Raghu Raja Sharma, Legla Executive Ex.O.P1/1, as well as document Ex.O.P1/2 and closed the evidence.  

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

7. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant Dilbag Singh had purchased one Maruti New Swift Dezire bearing registration No. PB02-CT-0841 in the month of August 2015 and the loan on the car was got sanctioned from the opposite party. It is further argued that at the time of purchasing the car from the agency of Jay Cee motors situated at 100 Ft. Road, Amritsar, insurance of the vehicle was also got done from the said agency for a period of one year and on the basis of the loan, the complainant started making payment of installment to the tune of Rs. 14,730/- per month and even 7/8 blank signed cheques were also taken as a security from the complainant. It is further argued that about 4/5 months back, the complainant received one phone call from the official of opposite party that the payment of insurance of the vehicle in question is pending and told the complainant to make the payment of insurance amount of the vehicle immediately but the complainant after listening all this got very tense because the complainant never asked the opposite party for getting the vehicle in question insured nor the complainant has ever executed any document for the purpose of executing any insurance contract between the complainant and the opposite party regarding the vehicle in question. Even, the complainant has not handed over any document like copy of RC or copy of previous insurance or copy of any identity proof to the opposite party to get his vehicle insured. It is further argued that the complainant approached the opposite party and also got the statement of account and shocked that the amount of Rs. 18,006/- has been charged to the loan account of the complainant without the consent and without the knowledge of complainant i.e. Ex.C-5 and the opposite party put the name of the complainant in the Sibel list without the consent and against the wish of the complainant and the opposite party declared the complainant as defaulter by mentioning the name of the complainant in the Sibel report. 

8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for opposite party argued that the insurance of the vehicle in question has been done by the opposite party as per the clause 13.3 i.e.Ex.O.P1/2 of the loan agreement duly executed by the complainant. It is further argued that it is the duty of the complainant to insure the vehicle which is hypothecated with the Bank and otherwise too it is illegal to ply any vehicle on the road without insuring the vehicle but the complainant has not done insurance of the vehicle at his own. 

9. The case of the complainant is that an amount of Rs. 18,006/- has been charged by the opposite party to the loan account of the complainant without the consent and without the knowledge of complainant which shows from Ex.C-5. In order to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party has placed on record copy of loan agreement i.e.Ex.O.P1/2 which is duly signed by the complainant and his co-borrower. The opposite party has submitted that the insurance of the vehicle in question has been done as per the clause 13.3 of the loan agreement which is duly executed by the complainant Ex.O.P1/2 and the clause 13.3 is as under;-

“The Borrower is aware that the insurance deposit is collected as a part of the EMI and kept in as an interest free deposit. The Lender may at its sole discretion as a facilitator get the insurance done or renew the existing insurance cover on behalf of the Borrower by remitting to the approved insurance company the premiums if collected through the Borrower's post dated cheque/pay orders/any other payment instructions. However, responsibility for effecting insurance always lies with the Borrower and that the Borrower shall always ensure that the insurance is renewed periodically irrespective of the fact whether the premium has been deposited/or not”.

Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record the copy of the insurance of the vehicle to prove that he has done the insurance of the vehicle timely and has supplied the copy of the same to the opposite party and the opposite party has wrongly got the insurance of his own without the intimation/notice to the complainant and charged the above said amount to the loan account of the complainant. So, we are of the view that the opposite party has rightly done the insurance of the vehicle as per clause 13.3 of loan agreement Ex.O.P1/2 which is duly signed by the complainant and this fact was very well within the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing any cogent evidence on the file. 

10. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint has no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of order will be supplied to the parties by District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       16th Day of August, 2022 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member