Haryana

StateCommission

A/998/2016

HARDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.VIRK

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 998 of 2016

Date of Institution: 21.10.2016

Date of Decision : 23.11.2016

 

Hardeep Singh son of Kundan Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, Haryana.

                                                                             Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Company Registered Office 24, Park Street, Kolkatta-700016, West Bengal.

2.      Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Company Branch Office 167/18, 2^nd Floor, Sadar Bazar, Near Ambala Club, Ambala.

3.      Magma Shrachi Finance Limited Company, Branch Office, First Floor of L.G. Showroom, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, Haryana.

4.      Oriental Magma Insurance and Fin. Coverage through the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Oriental House, A-5/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, BOGT Road, Karnal.

                                      Respondents- Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri G.S. Virk, Advocate

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Hardeep Singh-complainant has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum with the averments that he purchased TATA Truck bearing registration No.HR69-0865 after borrowing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties.  The loan was to be repaid in thirty five monthly installments of Rs.15,525/- each.  It was agreed that the insurance of the truck was to be got done by the opposite parties by paying Rs.1216/- per month extra.  The sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/-.  The insurance was to commence with effect from 19.02.2007 but it started on 28.02.2007 with the assured amount of Rs.3,31,600/-.  On 02.12.2007, the opposite parties issued another insurance cover note of the truck showing assured sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.  On 25.02.2007, the truck met with an accident.  The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the third party and spent Rs.60,000/- on the repair of the truck.  The opposite parties did not pay Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties also did not issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the complainant despite repayment of entire loan amount.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Opposite parties No.1 to 3, in their written version, denied the averments of the complaint and pleaded that the complainant availed loan facility of Rs.4,00,000/- under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 20.12.2006.  They were only facilitator for providing insurance in order to safeguard the financed amount. If there was any insurance dispute, the same was to be dealt by the Oriental Magma Insurance and Finance -opposite party No.4.  The complainant did not give any intimation regarding alleged accident.  The complainant was defaulter in repayment of loan and an amount of Rs.79003.73 was outstanding against him as on 18.08.2010.  The complainant did not disclose the particulars of the person to whom he paid Rs.1,00,000/- and also did not produce repair bill of Rs.60,000/-.

4.      The opposite party No.4, in its written version, also denied the averments of the complaint.  It was pleaded that opposite party No.4 was not insurer of the truck in question on the date of alleged accident, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it. 

5.      Learned District Forum after appreciating pleadings and evidence dismissed the complaint. 

6.      Aggrieved thereof, complainant has come up in appeal.

7.      It is not in dispute that the complainant availed loan facility of Rs.4,00,000/- from the opposite parties No.1 to 3 for purchasing of truck.  The complainant alleged that the truck met with an accident on 25.02.2007. To prove this, he did not produce any First Information Report/Daily Diary Report.  He even did not disclose the registration number of the offending vehicle, with whom the truck met with accident and the name of the third person to whom he paid Rs.1,00,000/-. He did not mention the name of workshop from where he got his truck repaired and spent Rs.60,000/-.  The complainant failed to prove that his truck ever met with an accident or that he spent Rs.60,000/- on its repair.  Thus, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  The appeal is also dismissed.      

 

Announced 23.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK