DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 92-13
Date of Institution : 31.1.2013
Date of Decision : 13.3.2015
Ravi Shanker Chadda son of Hem Raj Chadda R/oHouse No. 545/13,Main Bazar, Katra Sufaid, Tehsil and Distt.Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Incharge/Manager Indusind Bank Branch Mall Road,Near Hotel Ritz, Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint: under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : S/Sh.Rajat Anand & Manav Anand,Advs
For the opposite party : Sh.Aman Prasher,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1. Present complaint has been filed by Ravi Shankar Chadda under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he took car loan to the tune of Rs. 2,95,000/- from the opposite party bank on 28.7.2011 for the purchase of i-10 car. The said amount was payable in monthly installments of Rs. 8795/-. According to the complainant at the time of granting of loan, opposite party has
-2-
offered a scheme of car insurance by proposing that if the complainant will take the advance insurance policy for three years then it will give benefit to the complainant and the premium of advance three years car insurance will be much lesser and cheaper than the premium which will have to be paid every year. The complainant deposited Rs. 18000/- with the opposite party for the scheme of three years car insurance. The complainant alleges that he went to the opposite party bank on 20.7.2012 and told the officials of the opposite party bank that first year insurance of the car has expired and requested for renewal of the insurance. He also handed over the photographs and the official of the opposite party bank assured the complainant that cover note of insurance policy will be provided to the complainant within two days. But the opposite party did not provide the cover note of insurance of the car to the complainant. The said car bearing registration No. PB-02-BQ-0712 met with an accident on 29.10.2012 and was baldy damaged. The complainant and his driver also suffered injuries. The complainant tried to file the insurance claim but the insurance company refused to take the claim of the complainant by saying that insurance policy had not been renewed by the opposite party bank , as such claim was not maintainable. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the amount of the damage of the car to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/ alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
-3-
2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant himself has given in writing to the manager of the opposite party bank as per declaration dated 30.6.2012 that he would renew the insurance of financed vehicle himself before the expiry of the running first year insurance . It was denied that at the time of granting the loan, the opposite party offered the complainant any scheme of car insurance that if the complainant will take the advance insurance policy for three years, then benefit would not given to the complainant and premium of advance three years car insurance would be much lesser and cheaper then the premium which will have to pay every year. It was also denied that the complainant had deposited Rs. 18000/- to the opposite party for the purpose of scheme of three years car insurance. However, opposite party submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.6.2012 and told the manager of the opposite party bank that he will renew the insurance policy of the financed vehicle himself on or before 18.7.2012 i..e two days before the expiry of existing insurance policy of first year. The complainant himself had given this declaration on 30.6.2012 and has signed the declaration . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence photographs Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, copy of estimated loss statement Ex.C-4, copy of account statement Ex.C-5, copy of Insurance Policy Ex.C-6, copy of police report Ex.C-7, copy of the application to
-4-
the police Ex.C-8, account statement Ex.C-9, affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-10, affidavit of Sh.Aksham Chadda Ex.C-11.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rama Kant ,branch manager Ex.OP1, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP2, copy of declaration dated 30.6.2012 Ex.OP3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant took car loan to the tune of Rs. 2,95,000/- from the opposite party bank on 28.7.2011 for the purchase of i-10 car. The said amount was payable in monthly installment of Rs. 8795/-. At the time of granting of loan, opposite party has offered a scheme of car insurance by proposing that, if the complainant will take the advance insurance policy for three years then it will give benefit to the complainant and the premium of advance three years car insurance will be much lesser and cheaper than the premium which will have to be paid every year. Resultantly the complainant deposited Rs. 18000/- with the opposite party for the scheme of three years car insurance. The complainant alleges that he went to the opposite party bank on 20.7.2012 and told the officials
-5-
of the opposite party bank that first year insurance of the car has expired and requested for renewal of the insurance. He also handed over the photographs and the officials of the opposite party bank assured the complainant that cover note of insurance policy will be provided to the complainant within two days. But the opposite party did not provide the cover note of insurance of the car to the complainant. The said car bearing registration No. PB-02-BQ-0712 met with an accident on 29.10.2012 and was baldy damaged. The complainant and his driver also suffered injuries. The complainant tried to file the insurance claim but the insurance company refused to take the claim of the complainant by saying that insurance policy has not been renewed by the opposite party bank , as such claim is not maintainable. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that it was the duty of the opposite party to renew the insurance policy before the expiry of the first year insurance policy of the car of the complainant, but they did not do so, as a result of which the complainant could not file claim regarding the accident/loss of his car with the Insurance company and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party bank is that the complainant himself has given in writing to the manager of the opposite party bank as per declaration dated 30.6.2012 that he would renew the insurance of financed vehicle himself before the expiry of the running first year insurance . So the opposite party returned
-6-
the amount paid by the complainant in the account of the complainant. The opposite party denied that at the time of granting loan, the opposite party offered the complainant any scheme of car insurance that if the complainant will take the advance insurance policy for three years, then benefit would given to the complainant and premium of advance three years car insurance would be much lesser and cheaper than the premium which will have to pay every year. Opposite party also denied that the complainant had deposited Rs. 18000/- to the opposite party for the purpose of scheme of three years car insurance. Opposite party also denied that the complainant approached the opposite party on 20.7.2012 regarding the insurance of second year. However, the opposite party submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party on 30.6.2012 and told the manager of the opposite party bank that he will renew the insurance policy of the financed vehicle himself on or before 18.7.2012 i..e two days before the expiry of existing insurance policy of first year. The complainant himself had given this declaration on 30.6.2012 and has signed the declaration Ex.OP3 and handed over the same to the opposite party.So it is the complainant, who himself has restrained the opposite party from getting 2nd year insurance policy of his vehicle. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that the
-7-
complainant took the car loan to the tune of Rs. 2,95,000/- on which the accrued interest is Rs. 98,176/-, from the opposite party bank on 28.7.2011. Opposite party has taken Rs. 18000/ from the complainant as advance premium of three years insurance policy of the car of the complainant bearing registration No. PB-02-BQ-0712. Opposite party got the first year insurance of the car of the complainant which was for the period from 21.7.2011 to 20.7.2012 Ex.C-6. Thereafter the complainant himself gave in writing declaration to the opposite party, Ex.OP3 dated 30.6.2012 to the effect that he will get the insurance policy of financed vehicle renewed himself before expiry of the first insurance policy which was going to expire on 20.7.2012. Resultantly the opposite party returned the amount to the complainant as is evident from the statement of account Ex.C-9. But the complainant did not get the second insurance policy of his car after 20.7.2012. The said car met with an accident on 29.10.2012 as a result of which the car was badly damaged and the complainant and his driver also suffered injuries, as alleged by the complainant. Had the complainant not given this declaration Ex.OP3 dated 30.6.2012 to the opposite party bank, the complainant would have approached the opposite party bank before 20.7.2012 or on 20.7.2012 when the insurance policy of his vehicle was going to expire but he went on driving the vehicle on road without insurance from 21.7.2012 onwards . This silence on the part of the complainant for not pressing the opposite party to get the second year policy of his vehicle fully proves
-8-
that he had given this declaration dated 30.6.2012 Ex.OP3 to the opposite party that he would get the second year insurance policy of his vehicle himself before the expiry of the first year insurance policy. Even the complainant has received Rs. 6000/- from the opposite party on 21.6.2012 as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant Ex.C-9 which fully proves that the complainant himself has given in writing to the opposite party this declaration dated 30.6.2012 Ex.OP3 . But he failed to get the insurance policy himself for his vehicle. Therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable for not getting the second year insurance policy of the car of the complainant.
9. Consequently we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. As such we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
13.3.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
