Haryana

Karnal

CC/266/2021

Livanshu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Liberty General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 266 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.08.06.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:02.06.2023

 

Livanshu (aged bout 21 years) son of Shri Shailander Kumar, resident of house no.2/14, Ram Nagar, Karnal. Aadhar card no.2661 4253 6076.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Liberty General Insurance Company Limited, Branch at 2^nd floor, 171/2, Rai Market, Vijay Rattan Chowk, S.B. Road, Ambala Cantt. Haryana-133001.

 

2.     IDFC First Bank Limited, SCO-237, Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

3.     M/s Green Autos near Arjun Gate, G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Pawan Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Kunal Chopra, counsel for the OP no.2.

                    Shri Ramphal Narwal, counsel for the OP no.3.

       

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had purchased motorcycle TVS Radeon from OP no.3 for a total amount of Rs.71,522/-. The OP no.3 also got insured the said motorcycle from OP no.1 and complainant paid Rs.5501/- as premium for the period from 01.10.2019 to 30.10.2020. The said motorcycle was financed by the OP no.2 to the tune of Rs.58,494/- on 26.09.2019 and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant as down payment. The loan amount is to be repaid in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.2149/-. Thereafter, the motorcycle of complainant got registered with the registration authority, vide registration no.HR-05-BB-2935. The complainant started paying the installments of the said motorcycle to OP no.2 at Karnal. On 10.07.2020, father of the complainant was driving the said motorcycle and at about 8.30/9.00 p.m. when he was on the Kachhwa Flyover, Mall Road, Karnal suddenly the said motorcycle got slipped due to heavy rain and he fell down alongwith motorcycle and received injuries. In the said incident the motorcycle was also badly damaged. The father of complainant had been taking treatment continuously about a month. In the second week of August, 2020 complainant brought the motorcycle to the premises of the OP no.3 for getting it repaired. After checking the motorcycle, OP no.2 prepared estimate amounting to Rs.26,700/- and sent the same to the office of OP no.1 but OP no.1 repudiate the claim of the complainant and since then the motorcycle of the complainant is under the possession of the OP no.3.

2.             It is further averred that Government imposed lockdown over the whole country due to spreading of Covid-19 pandemic in India and under these circumstances, the complainant lost his job and thus, could not continue paying the installment of the said motorcycle to OP no.2. On the other hand, OP started imposing huge fine in his loan account no.25862030 due to non-depositing of installments towards the vehicle loan. The complainant visited the office of OP no.2 so many times and requested that the rate of interest is much higher and arbitrary and not within the knowledge of the complainant. Hence interest over the loan amount is adjusted @ 6% per annum. Moreover, Central Government has already instructed to all the banks, financial institution etc. not to charge higher rate of interest on the loan forcibly but inspite of that instruction, some official of the OP no.2 are continuously threatening the complainant to pay the interest for the lockdown period. They further threatened the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.1,15,898/- to OP no.2. The complainant requested the OP no.2 several times that he is not in a position to pay the original amount of installment as he has no source of income due to covid-19 pandemic. All these facts proved that the OP by not settling the matter has indulged the complainant in unwanted litigation. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP no.1 to disburse the claim amount of the damaged motorcycle in question and further directed to OP no.2 not to charge the interest on the loan amount forcibly and illegally from the complainant during the lockdown period as well as OPs may also be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss and towards litigation expenses.

3.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; territorial jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant reported claim for damages to the insured vehicle in an accident dated 07.07.2020. On intimation of the claim, OP appointed a surveyor to inspected the damaged vehicle and the surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.8228/- subject to terms of the policy. On examination of the documents submitted by the complainant, it was observed that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle and hence the claim was not payable as per terms of the policy. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was denied as per terms and conditions of the policy, vide letter dated 20.07.2021. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; limitation; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in any manner on the part of the OP as OP has charging the interest as per the agreement signed by the complainant after reading and understand the same. The OP will act as per law and in due course of law. It is further pleaded that complainant is a willful defaulter and never paid the installments in time. It is wrong and denied that the OP no.2 prepared the estimate amounting to Rs.26700/- and sent the same to the office of OP no.1. It is also denied that complainant could not pay the installment due to covid-19 and the OP imposed huge fine. It is also denied that complainant visited the office of OP and requested for waived the interest on unpaid loan amount.  It is also denied that OP has charged the higher rate of interest. It is also denied that official of OP no.2 demanding the interest for lock down period. The complainant was a willful defaulter from very beginning and never paid the installments in time and now came with a false story just to grab the loan amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP no.3 filed its written version and raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant parked the vehicle in the premises of OP no.3 for only routine service and after service the OP no.3 many times requested complainant to take the said vehicle and pay only engine oil charges (which consume during service) of Rs.290/- but he always postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Now Rs.290/- as engine oil charges+ parking charges Rs.25/- per day is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant is also liable to pay the parking charges Rs.25/- per day till complainant did not take the vehicle from OP no.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 17.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shraddha Kinare, Legal Manager Ex.OW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.O1, copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex.O2, copy of survey report Ex.O3, copy of repudiation letter Ex.O4, copy of application for services on driving licence Ex.O5, copy of claim form Ex.O6, copy of driving licence Ex.O7 and closed the evidence on 04.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manpreet Singh, POA holder Ex.OP2/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of RC Ex.OP2, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravinder Dhall, proprietor Ex.OP3/A and closed the evidence on 21.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

11.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

12.           Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased motorcycle TVS Radeon from OP no.3 and the same was got insured  from OP no.1 through OP no.3 and the said motorcycle was also got financed from OP no.2. On 10.07.2020, due to heavy rain, the said motorcycle got slipped and fell down and was also badly damaged. In the second week of August, 2020 complainant brought the motorcycle to the premises of the OP no.3 for getting it repaired. After checking the motorcycle, OP no.2 prepared estimate amounting to Rs.26,700/- and sent the same to the office of OP no.1 but OP no.1 repudiate the claim of the complainant and since then the motorcycle of the complainant is under the possession of the OP no.3. He further argued that due to covid-19 pandemic, complainant could not pay the installment regularly and thus he requested the OP no.2 to adjust the rate of interest @ 6% per annum and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

13.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that on receipt of intimation of the claim, OP appointed a surveyor to inspect the damaged vehicle and the surveyor of the OP has assessed the loss for an amount of Rs.8228/- subject to terms of the policy. On examination of the documents submitted by the complainant, it was observed that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle and hence the claim was rightly repudiated the same, vide letter dated 20.07.2021 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

14.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP has charging the interest as per the agreement signed by the complainant. The complainant is a willful defaulter and never paid the installments in time and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

15.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant parked the vehicle in the premises of OP no.3 for only routine service and after service the OP no.3 many times requested complainant to take the said vehicle and pay only engine oil charges of Rs.290/- but complainant did not pay the same. Now Rs.290/- as engine oil charges+ parking charges Rs.25/- per day is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant is also liable to pay the parking charges Rs.25/- per day till complainant did not take the vehicle from OP no.3 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3.

16.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

17.           Admittedly, complainant is the registered owner of the motorcycle TVS Radeon and the same was got insured from the OP no.1 for the period from 01.10.2019 to 30.10.2020. It is also admitted that the said motorcycle was financed by the OP no.2.

18.           On 10.07.2020, the father of the complainant namely Shailander Singh was driving the said motorcycle and met with an accident and received injuries. The said motorcycle was shifted to OP no.3 for getting repair. As per the complainant, OP no.3 has prepared estimate amounting to Rs.26,700/- and same was sent to the OP no.1 being insurer, but OP no.1 has repudiated the claim of complainant.

19.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP no.1, vide repudiation letter Ex.O4 dated 20.07.2020 on the ground that at the time of accident, father of the complainant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. On perusal of the driving licence Ex.O7, it reveals that same was valid from 28.05.1999 to 23.11.2019. The accident took place on 10.07.2020. Thus, at that time driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence.

20.           The complainant has not deposited the loan installments in time on the excuse of covid-19 pandemic. Complainant has failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No account statement or other document has been placed on file to ascertain that OP no.2 has imposed the interest on higher side. Complainant has only placed on file his affidavit and copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2 and copy of Aadhar card Ex.C3. Except these documents no other proof has been produced by the complainant to prove his case. Complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as loan agreement.

21.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.06.2023                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                      Member