Haryana

Karnal

68/2010

Hardeep Singh S/o Kundan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagan Sehgal

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 68 of 2010

                                                             Date of instt.  02.02.2010

                                                               Date of decision:20.09.2016

 

Hardeep Singh son of Kundan Singh resident of VPO Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Magma Shrachi Finance Limited Co., Regd. Office 24, Park Street, Kolkatta-700 016.

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

3. Magma Shrachi Finance Limited Co. Branch Office, First Floor of L.G. show Room, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

4. Oriental Magma Insurance and Fin. Coverage through The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. R.O. Oriental House, A-5/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi B.O.G.T. Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                             …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Gagan Sehgal Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  Vineet Rathore  Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3.

                    Shri Ramesh Chaudhary Advocate for opposite party no.4.

         

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he borrowed an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs from opposite parties for purchasing one TATA truck TC 2515 bearing registration no.HR-69-0865.  The loan amount was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs.15,525/- each. Agreement no.PG/33/V/05/137 was executed regarding the said loan. It was agreed that the insurance of the vehicle was to be got done for three years by the opposite parties and an amount of Rs.1216/- extra per month was to be paid by him for that purpose. The sum assured was Rs.6.0 lacs and insurance was to start w.e.f. 19.2.2007, but inspite of getting money in advance the opposite parties got the vehicle insured on 28.02.2007 for assured amount of Rs.3,31,600/- only. On 2.12.2007 the opposite parties issued another insurance cover note of the vehicle with the assured sum of Rs.6.0 lacs and adjusted Rs.4,000/- more from the installment of the loan amount. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 25.2.2007. The vehicle of complainant and another vehicle of the third party were damaged in the said accident. Due to the delay in insurance policy he had to pay Rs.1 lac to third party and spent about Rs.60,000/-on repairs of his vehicle. The opposite parties were liable to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as insurance compensation amount, but they did not pay even a single penny.  It has further been alleged that the rate of interest of the loan was fixed as 6.8% per annum, but when he calculated the installment, he came to know that interest @ 8% per annum was illegally and arbitrarily charged from him. The payments of the insurance of the vehicle for the period of 8.3.2008 to 7.3.2009 and 7.3.2009 to 6.3.2010 were also made by him from his own pocket, though the opposite parties were liable to pay for the insurance upto to the year 2010. He had repaid the entire loan, but despite that ‘No Dues Certificate’  was not issued by the opposite parties, rather they demanded Rs.81,000/- from him for issuing ‘No Dues Certificate’ and releasing the documents. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain and sufferings apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 filed joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant does not fall within the purview of definition of consumer as he availed finance facility for commercial vehicle and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant borrowed Rs.4 lac from the opposite parties and that facility was availed by him under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 20.12.2006. Opposite parties were only facilitator for providing insurance in order to safeguard the finance amount.  If, there was any insurance dispute, the same was to be dealt by the opposite party no.4. It has further been pleaded that no information regarding the alleged accident was given to the opposite parties. The complainant was a  financial defaulter and a huge amount of Rs.79003.73  was outstanding against him as on 18.08.2010. The complainant has neither disclosed the particulars of the person to whom he paid Rs.1,00,000/-  nor produced any  bill of Rs.60,000/- regarding repairs of his vehicle. The complainant has falsely alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 25.2.2007 for getting the insurance amount from the opposite parties. It has further been averred that the complainant could get the ‘No Dues Certificate’ and documents after making payment of the entire loan amount. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.4 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and that the controversy raised by the complainant is of the rendition of accounts, therefore complaint is not maintainable.

                   On merits, it has been averred that opposite party no.4 was not insurer of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged accident, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it. The complainant has neither disclosed the name of the third party to whom he had given the alleged amount of Rs.1 lac nor mentioned the registration of the vehicle of the third person nor gave details of the repair of his own vehicle. Infact, no such accident had ever taken place as alleged by the complainant. A false, frivolous and concocted story has been put forward by the complainant just in order to grab the money from the opposite party no.4. Moreover, non-existence of First Information Report/Daily Diary Report qua the accident in question also falsifies the stand of the complainant. Even no OD (Owner’s Damage) claim was filed by the complainant and no intimation regarding the alleged accident was ever given, therefore, he has no cause of action to file the complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and C38 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of  Deepak Kumar Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of R.S.Bahlan Ex.OP4/A and documents Ex.OP1  to Ex.OP8 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                As per the case of the complainant he obtained loan facility from the opposite parties no.1 to 3 for purchase of TATA Truck TC 2515 and as per the loan agreement the opposite parties no.1 to 3 were to get insured the vehicle upto 3 years, but instead of 19.2.2007 the vehicle was got insured w.e.f.28.2.2007. It has been alleged that on 25.2.2007 the vehicle met with an accident and in the said accident, his vehicle as well as the vehicle of third party were damaged and he had to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to third party and spent Rs.60,000/- on repairs of his vehicle. He has claimed Rs.1,64,000/- as compensation, rendition of accounts,  issuance of ‘No Dues Certificate’ and release the documents apart from compensation for mental pain and agony.

8.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that no First Information Report or Daily Diary Report regarding the alleged accident dated 25.2.2007 was lodged by the complainant. There is no documentary evidence that his vehicle was damaged in the alleged accident. Even the registration number of the vehicle with which his vehicle had met accident, has not been disclosed in the complaint or the affidavit of the complainant. The name of the third person to whom he had allegedly paid Rs.1,00,000/- has not been disclosed in the complaint or the affidavit. It has also not been disclosed as to at which workshop he got repaired his vehicle. No bill or any other document regarding payment of Rs.60,000/- towards repairs has been produced. Neither it has been alleged in the complaint nor there is any evidence that any owner’s damage claim was ever lodged by him with the opposite parties no.1 to 3 or opposite party no.4. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the allegations of the complainant regarding accident of his truck damage, payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to third party and spending Rs.60,000/- on repairs of the vehicle are quite vague and he has not been able to substantiate the same by leading any cogent evidence. Therefore, he cannot allowed any compensation towards the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made by him to third person and the amount of Rs.60,000/- spent by him on repairs of the vehicle.

9.                The complainant has produced the receipt regarding payments made by him towards the loan amount Ex.C1 to Ex.C34. The opposite parties no.1 to 3 have produced the copy of the statement of account Ex.OP2. Learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to dispute the entries of the statement of account. Till the loan amount is repaid by the complainant, the opposite parties cannot be directed to issue ‘No Dues Certificate’ and release the documents deposited for obtaining the loan.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the 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: 20.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member