Haryana

Ambala

CC/80/2016

Anup Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI Gen Inss Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Priya Sharma

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 80 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 05.02.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 05.02.2018

 

          Anup Kumar s/o Harpal Singh aged about …years r/o village Shahpur,   District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus                 

                                                         

1.Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/Manager 2^nd Floor, Anuj Chamber, 24 Park Street Kolkata, West Bangal 700016.

2.The Chairman/Managing Director/ Manager Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Anuj Chamber, 24, Park Street Kolkata, West Bengal,700016.

3.Magma HDI General Insurance Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/Manager Sector 13, SCO 3 First Floor HSIDC, Karnal.

4.The Chairman/Managing Director/Manager Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. Sector 13, SCO 3, First Floor, HSIDC, Karnal.

5.Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd. (Agent Code-AGB0000001) through its Chairman/Managing Director/Manager 167/18, 2^nd Floor, Near Ambala Club Sadar Bazar Ambala Cantt.

6.The Chairman/Managing Director/Manager Magma HDI General Insurance Co.Ltd.167/18,2^nd Floor, Near Ambala Club 167/18, 2^nd Floor near Ambala Club Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

7.Magma Fincrop Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/ Manager 24, Park Street, Kolkata, West Bangal 700016.

8.The Chairman/ Managing Director/Manager, Magma Fin Corp Ltd. 24, Park Street, Kolkata, West Bangal 700016

9.Magma ITI Finance Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director/ Manager 167/18, 2^nd Floor near Ambala Club, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

10.The Chairman/Managing Director/Manager Magma ITI Finance Ltd. 167/18, 2^nd Floor Near Ambala Club Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                             ….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:             SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                             MS.ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                           

 

Present:                 Mrs.Priya Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh. V.P.Gupta, counsel for Op Nos.1 to 6.                                                          Sh.Puneet Sirpaul, counsel for Op Nos.7 to 10.

 

ORDER

                             In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a tractor bearing registration No.HR01AJ-4184 on 22.02.2014 after getting it financed from OP Nos.7 to 10 at the place of OP Nos.9 & 10 for Rs.2,61,607/- on dated 28.02.2014 and the same was insured with Op Nos.1 to 6  at the place of OP Nos. 5 & 6 vide policy No.CN14400002/4107/233156 having validity from 22.02.2014 to 21.02.2015 by paying a sum of Rs.9438/- as premium. On 14.01.2015, said vehicle was got stolen and regarding this FIR was also registered in police station Parao, Ambala Cantt. The police had filed untraced report dated 16.07.2015 which was consigned by the court of Ms.Monika Khanagwal, JMIC, Ambala.  The complainant visited OP Nos. 1 to 6 for making the payment of insurance amount alongwith the required documents but they postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant kept on depositing installments and a sum of Rs.1,73,853/- was deposited with Op Nos.7 to 10 till 20.11.2015.  The complainant requested the Op Nos. 1 to 6 many a times to make the payment of insurance amount in order to avoid unwanted interest and delay in making the payment but no proper action had been taken despite sending the requisite documents with them. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C18.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared and filed reply. OP Nos. 7 to 10 filed their joint reply wherein preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, maintainability and jurisdiction etc. It has been submitted that an amount of Rs.4,67,945/- has been paid to them by the insurance company being financer of the vehicle and the Op Nos.7 to 10 are ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,63,868/- to the complainant after deducting the loan amount of Rs.2,04,077/-. The answering OPs have no concern with the insurance company and they are not taking undue advantage and also not creating damage to the complainant being seated in same office. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Op Nos. 7 to 10 have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R2.

                             Op Nos. 1 to 6 did not file their reply to the complaint by submitting that the insurance amount to the tune of Rs.4,67,945/- has already been paid to the financer of the vehicle and no grievance against them is remained pending against them.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on the case file it is clear that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR01AJ-4184 was insured with Op Nos. 1 to 6 and the same was financed by Op Nos. 7 to 10. The vehicle in question was stolen on 14.01.2015 during the subsistence of the policy and the intimation was given to the Ops on 15.01.2015 besides registration of FIR on the same day. In the present case the untraced report was submitted in July, 2015 which was duly consigned by the learned JMIC, Ambala. Undisputedly OP Nos. 1 to 6 had already made the payment of Rs.4,67,945/- to the Op Nos. 7 to 10 being financer of the vehicle in question during the pendency of the complaint.  The Op Nos. 7 to 10 in their joint reply have submitted that they are ready to pay the amount of  Rs.2,63, 868/- out of the total received amount i.e. Rs.4,67,945/- after deducting the amount of Rs.2,04,077/- as loan amount.

5.                          During the course of arguments Sh.Deepak Kumar,Assistant Manager MAGMA  made a statement that the insurance company had released the amount of Rs.4,72,625/- and the amount of Rs.4680/- was deducted from that amount and rest amount to the tune of Rs.4,67,945/- was transferred in closure collection and after closing the loan account of the complainant excess amount of Rs.2,63,868/- was released to the complainant through cheque dated 29.06.2016 but the complainant had refused to receive the same. He further stated that we are still ready to give amount of Rs.2,63,868/- to the complainant and sought one month time for the same.

6.                          The grievance of the complainant is that due to delay in settling the claim by the Op No.1 to 6 he has been burdened with unwanted interest on the financed amount besides unwanted delay in making the loan installments as the Op Nos. 1 to 6 have caused delay of around 1 year in settling the claim.  

7.                          It was for the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant as early as possible without causing any harassment to the complainant because the untraced report submitted by the police had already been consigned by the learned Court but despite that for what reasons the insurance company has settled the claim of the complainant after a delay of around one year. Undoubtedly the Ops were in dominating position because the vehicle was insured by Op Nos. 1 to 6 duly financed by Op Nos. 7 to 10. The complainant has firstly dealt with the Ops No.1 to 6 for settling the claim and when his claim had been settled then Op Nos. 7 to 10 have been harassing him because the total IDV i.e. Rs.4,67,945/-has been released to them despite the fact that the balance loan amount was very less and it was for the Op Nos. 1 to 6 to verify the balance amount after taking the consent of the complainant before releasing the whole amount in favour of Op Nos. 7 to 10.  Perusal of the document Annexure R1 i.e. ledger account of the complainant reveals that he kept on making the payment of installment even after stealing the vehicle and had the Op Nos. 1 to 6 had settled the claim without causing unwanted delay then the complainant might have not suffered/burdened with undue interest besides harassment and mental agony.

8.                          The complainant at the time of arguments made a statement that he is ready to receive an amount of Rs.2,63,868/- under protest. However, amount of Rs.99,968/- was outstanding against him and out of this amount Rs.21000/- has been waived off by the  OP Nso.7 to 10, therefore, they are entitled for recover an amount of Rs.78968/- only qua the loan amount. 

9.                          The version of the complainant is that as per statement of account placed on file by him out of the total amount i.e. Rs.4,67,945/-  an amount of Rs.1,32,409/- was to be charged from him by Magma Finance, therefore, the Op Nos. 7 to 10 were to pay an amount of Rs.3,35,536/-.  

10.                        After going through the statements given by Deepak Kumar, Assistant Manager, Magma Finance and learned counsel for the complainant it is clear that there is dispute qua deduction of the amount on account of loan besides the grievance against the insurance company OP Nos. 1 to 6. Since Op Nos.7 to 10 are ready to pay amount of Rs.263,868/- to the complainant and the complainant is ready to receive the amount of Rs.2,63,868/-, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the Op Nos.7 to 10 to pay the amount of Rs.2,63,868/- to the complainant within a period of one month alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from 23.05.2016 as the said amount was received from the insurance company by the Magma Finance.  

11.                        So far as the balance amount/excess amount, which has already been recovered by the OP Nos.7 to 10 from the complainant, if any, to be recovered by the OP Nos. 7 to 10 from the complainant is concerned there is no sufficient evidence had been led by both the parties and being a complex question it requires elaborating evidence to decide the controversy as there are two balance sheets have been produced by the parties and both are contradicts each other. Therefore, this Forum is of the view this controversy cannot be decided in summarily manner against Op Nos. 7 to 10 only. The complainant is given liberty to approach to the appropriate court of law in order to set this controversy at rest.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583.

12.                        So far as the deficiency of the Op Nos. 1 to 6 are settling the claim of the complainant after a delay of one year is concerned. It is proved on the file that insurance company has rendered a statement on 13.07.2016 to the effect that they have made the payment to Op Nos.7 to 10 as on 23.05.2016. OP Nos.1 to 6 have not filed the written statement in this case except the statement. At the time of arguments insurance company has placed on record the claim form which was duly filed by the complainant on 26.04.2015 and the OP Nos.1 to 6 have sent a letter to the complainant for submitting Form 35 and clarification concerning violation of policy condition 5 safety & security of vehicle as vehicle  left in unattended & unguarded area. It is strange that the insurance company had sent this letter to the complainant after 8 months of submitting the claim, which is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of insurance company.  This Forum is of the view that the insurance company has to make the payment within reasonable time i.e. three months from the date of submitting the claim to their office on 26.04.2015, so in the present case intimation regarding the theft received by Op Nos. 1 to 6 on 15.01.2015 and the concerned insurance company must have settled the claim upto 26.07.2015 whereas amount has been made to Op Nos. 7 to 10 on 23.05.2016, hence, they are liable to pay the interest 9 % per annum from 26.07.2015 to 23.05.2016 on the amount of  Rs.4,72,625/-  to the complainant. OP Nos. 1 to 6 have complete knowledge about the total loss of the vehicle and about the pendency of the claim. OP No.1 to 6 have illegally charged the premium from the Op Nos. 7 to 10 i.e. Magma Finance when the vehicle in question was not roadworthy rather the same was total loss. OP Nos. 1 to 6 are also liable to refund the premium for the period from February 2015 to February 2017 to the tune of Rs.15606/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of respective payment till its actual realization within a period of one month. It is ordered accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 05.02.2018                                 

                                                                                      

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)   (D.N. ARORA)

           Member                                  Member                    President