Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/501/2017

Kamlesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Gupta

04 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/501/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/07/2017
0Date of Decision	:	04/07/2019

 

 

1.     Kamlesh aged 42 years widow of Dharam Pal son of Ram Kishan resident of Village Kheri Gujjran, Tehsil Dera Bassi District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.     Sukhwinder Kaur daughter of late Shri Dharam Pal wife of Malkiat Singh resident of Village Rana Tehsil Raipur Rani District Panchkula (Haryana).

3.     Gurpreet Kaur aged 19 years daughter of late Shri Dharam Pal resident of Village Kheri Gujjran, Tehsil Dera Bassi District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

4.     Sukhwinder Singh aged 17 years minor son of late Shri Dharam Pal;

5.     Manjit Singh aged 15 years minor son of late Shri Dharam Pal, minors through their mother Kamlesh being natural guardian and next friend, residents of Village Kheri Gujjran, Tehsil Dera Bassi District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its Director having its registered office situated at 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai, 400051.

2.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its Manager, Tractor & Farm Equipment Loan-BHUCHO Mandi, situated at Ground Floor W-1/36 Bhucho, Kanchya Road, Near Truck Union, Bhucho Mandi, Bathinda District Bathinda, 151101, Punjab.

3.     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.153-154, Basement Sector-9, Chandigarh.

4.     Kotak Life Insurance Claims Department, 7^th Floor Zone-2 Kotak, Infinity Building No.21, Infinity Park, Off. Western Express Highway, General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (East) Mumbai, through its General Manager.

5.     Kotak Life Insurance, SCO No.120, 6^th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Authorised Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                             

      

ARGUED BY	:	Complainants No.1 & 3 in person
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations in brief are, late Sh. Dharam Pal, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 5 had purchased a tractor make Swaraj 855 from M/s Kohli Tractors at Dera Bassi and got the same financed from OPs 1 to 3 for an amount of Rs.4,63,504/- under the scheme of tractor & farm equipments loans. Later on the tractor was registered bearing registration No.PB65AD 5208 from the Registration Authority Mohali with hypothecation of OPs 1 to 3. Further case is, the tractor was insured with Chola MS and the loan documents were scribed inter se OPs 1 to 3 and it was repayable in 60 months with 10 equal half yearly installments of Rs.71,219/-. The first installment was paid on 10.5.2016.  The deceased was insured with OPs 4 & 5 and in the event of his death, loan was to be paid by the insurer to the creditor i.e. OPs 1 to 3. Sh. Dharma Pal had died on 17.9.2016 due to failure of heart.  Report was made and thereafter claim was submitted by complainant No.2 being nominee of the deceased.  However, it was not agreed to and even the tractor was taken into possession by OPs 1 to 3.  Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the present consumer complaint has been filed for directing the OPs to make the payment of the entire outstanding loan amount; refund the second installment amount of Rs.71,220/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation.
2.         OPs 1 to 3 contested the consumer complaint and filed their joint written reply.  The crux of their reply is, first installment was paid and as per the terms of agreement, tractor was taken into possession as it was hypothecated with them and repayment defaulted. It is also the case, complainant No.3, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was also the co-borrower.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OPs 4 & 5 furnished their separate joint written reply and their claim is, co-borrower, complainant No.3 was insured and in the event of her death the outstanding loan amount was to be paid by them to the creditor i.e. OPs 1 to 3.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the complainants No.1 & 3, learned counsel for OPs and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          At the very outset, let it be taken note of here, per agreement inter se parties, an arbitrator was appointed who had passed the award on 19.1.2017 and the name of the arbitrator was Sh. Kamaljit Singh.  The award had gone in favour of OPs 1 to 3 and against the complainants.  It is further to be taken note of here, validity of the said award was challenged by way of appeal by the present complainants before the Hon’ble District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and a copy of the grounds of appeal is Annexure A-1.
7.         The record of consumer complaint shows the present consumer complaint was filed on 6.7.2017 i.e. after the announcement of the award by Sh. Kamaljit Singh, sole arbitrator referred to above.  The award is under challenge before the learned District Judge.  This Forum is not to sit as a court of appeal against the award passed by the Arbitrator. It is within the domain of the authorities or court prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  In case this consumer complaint is entertained and decided on merits, there is chance of inconsistent orders being passed and this will lead to act of indiscipline on the part of this Forum as the award passed by the Arbitrator is still in force and has not been set aside by the learned District Judge. The legal remedies prescribed to challenge the validity of the award are being availed of by the complainants before the learned District Judge.  In this situation, we have to put our quasi-judicial hands off in entertaining this consumer complaint.
8.         Per pleadings of the complainants, the case was, there was insurance policy issued by OPs 4 & 5 and in the event of death of loanee, Sh. Dharam Pal, the amount was to be indemnified by the insurer to the creditor i.e. banker/OPs 1 to 3.  No such certificate of insurance has been produced on record while contra OPs 4 & 5 have produced on record with their reply certificate of Membership Form cum Declaration of Good Health (Annexure A) which shows that life of complainant No.3, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was insured and not that of deceased, Sh. Dharam Pal.  Ms. Gurpreet Kaur is still alive and Annexure B also shows this fact that certificate of insurance was in respect of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur and not Sh. Dharam Pal and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur is one of the co-borrowers of the loan as per the record produced.  May be a fact that sentimentally or on humanitarian grounds, complainants have been left in the lurch after the death of their husband/father, Sh. Dharam Pal. This Forum, however, cannot bypass the award passed by the sole arbitrator plus the documents produced on record which does not in any way show the life of Sh. Dharam Pal was insured and in the event of his death this amount was to be paid by the insurer to the creditors i.e. bankers. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the allegations of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service are not proved against the OPs. Hence, present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/07/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President