Orissa

Cuttak

CC/105/2014

Gokul charan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N K Dash & associates

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.105/2014

Gokul Charan Das,

S/O:Jalandhar Das,

At:Sanaor,Rajnagar,Dist:Kendrapara-754225,

Odisha.                                                                                                     ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

3-Dass India Tower,1^st Floor,2^nd Line Beach,Parrys,

Chennai,Tamil Nadu-600001.

 

2.        Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,184,Janpath,

Bhubaneswar,Odisha-751001.

 

3.        Kotak Mahindra Old Muitual Life Insurance,

At:Lotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,184,

Janpath,BhubaneswarOdisha-751001

 

4.       Pragati Traders,Authorized Dealer,

New Holland Tractor(India) Pvtl Ltd.,

11/2,Industrial Estate,Madhupatna,

Cuttack-753010(Orissa).                                                              ....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.08.2014

Date of Order:  29.08.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :                    Mr. B.P.Sarangi,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No. 3 :                     Mr. S.Sashtry,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.4:                                None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President. 

 

            Case of the complainant in short is that the complainant had purchased a tractor from O.P No.4 by executing the documents.  The brother of the complainant namely Late Abhay Chand Das had availed a  loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 23.9.13 for purchasing a tractor vide loan agreement no.TEF2183089 dt.15.9.2013.  The complainant was a co-borrower/guarantor.  The loan was to be repaid in 47 monthly instalments alongwith interest @ 9.84% per annum with one month as moratorium period.  E.M.I was thus fixed to be @ Rs.10,580/- with effect from October,2013 to August,2017.  The complainant further has mentioned in his complaint petition that though the premium of the insurance was paid when the loan was availed in the month of September,2013; no insurance policy was issued.  His brother Abhay Chand Das had died on 30.10.13 and the matter was intimated to the O.Ps.  As per the instruction of O.P No.2, the complainant continued payment of the E.M.Is.  On 14.11.13 the complainant received the Certificate of Insurance reflecting his name instead of the name of his deceased brother.  The widow wife of Abhay Chand Das had thereby written a letter to the O.Ps for rectifying the Certificate of Insurance.  The O.P No.2 vide his letter through advocate dt.3.6.14 has mentioned that the insurance was made in favour of the complainant since because Abhay Chand Das had crossed the age of 50 years by then.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 had issued letters dt.5.6.14 and 1.7.14 demanding the entire loan amount from the complainant.  Thus, it is the contention of the complainant that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade and had not issued NOC for which he has filed this case complaining of severe mental agony and harassment and for which he has demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the O.Ps alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps towards his litigation expenses.

            The complainant has filed copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.4 though had appeared on 8.9.14 having not contested and not filed written version, had been set exparte.  However, O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have contested this case out of whom O.Ps no.1 & 2 have conjointly filed their written version whereas O.P No.3 has filed his separate written version.  As per the written version of O.P No.1 & 2 the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed U/S-26 of the C.P.Act,1986 as there is no cause of action.  According to them, the Certificate of Insurance was issued in favour of the complainant as per the declaration of good health submitted by the complainant and hence the demand of the death claim in respect of the deceased brother of the complainant does not arise.  The deceased brother of the complainant was beyond the insurable age as required for which it was the complainant himself who after filling up and signing the declaration of good health had obtained the policy in his favour and not in the name of his deceased brother Abhay Chand Das.  Thus there was no deficiency in service nor the O.Ps had practised any unfair trade.  Accordingly it is prayed by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 in their written version to dismiss the complaint petition which is not maintainable.

            O.P No.3 has also mentioned in his written version that the complaint petition as filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed as per the provisions U/S-26 of the C.P.Act,1986.  He also has mentioned about the declaration of good health as submitted by the complainant and about the Certificate of Insurance issued in the name of the complainant for which the death benefit as claimed in favour of the deceased brother of the complainant does not hold good.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on his part and the complaint petition as filed is liable to be dismissed. 

            O.P No.3 has filed xerox copies of documents showing that the Group Insurance good health declaration form was signed by the complainant Gokul Charan Das and the Certificate of Insurance being issued in favour of the complainant Gokul Charan Das.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether the O.Ps had practised any unfair trade?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.i.

            Issue no.1 being the most vital issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            After perusing the averments as made in the complaint petition and the written versions, the connecting documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the Group Insurance Good Health Declaration Form vide Annexure-1 as filed by O.P No.3 reflects the name of the complainant as the signatory therein.  The Certificate of Insurance vide Annexure-2 has also filed by O.P no.2 goes to show that it was issued in favour of Gokul Charan Das and none-else.  Annexure-1 as filed by the complainant is the copy of the document and letter showing the details of the loan as availed by the deceased brother of the complainant namely Abhay Chand Das.  Exhibit-3 series as filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint petition also goes to show that the Certificate of Insurance was issued in his favour.  Ofcourse, the complainant has filed Annexure-4 which is copy of the letter addressed to the Manager,Kotak Mahindra Bank being written by one Usharani Das who has mentioned therein about the rectification of the name of her late Husband Abhay Chand Das instead of Gokul Charan Das.  In reply to such letter of the said Usharani Das, Annexure-5 is the letter of O.Ps through their learned  counsel wherein they have stated that Late Abhay Chand Das alongwith complainant Gokul Charan Das were co-borrower of the loan who had availed the loan and sine because Abhay Chand Das was more than 50 years in age, he was not insured and in his place, the complainant Gokul Charan Das being the co-borrowers was insured under this plan which was well within the knowledge of late Abhay Chand Das.  This Commission has little scope and cannot stretch beyond the ambits of the C.P.Act.  The documents as available indeed goes to show that Abhay Chand Das was not the insured person rather the complainant of this case was the insured by the O.P/Insurers.  Thus, the claim as made accusing and alleging against the O.Ps by the complainant does not found here to be fit and proper and to be maintainable.  Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.2,3 & 4.

            From the above discussions, it is needless to ponder into the other issues as framed in this case. Hence it is so ordered;

                                                       ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, no.1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.P No.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member