Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/374/2018

N.Narayanamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.M.Nelson Nivas

18 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:11.05.2012                                                                        Date of disposal         :18.08.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT:   THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                          : PRESIDENT

                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                         : MEMBER-1

                                  THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA    : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.374/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 18^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

 

• N.Narayanamurthy 
•  S/o.Nandagopal

     No.23, Road Street, 

2^nd Cross street, Kundrathur 

   Chennai-600 069.….Complainant

2.  

 

              

 

1. Mahindra Finance Limited,

Rep.by its General Manager,

Having its registered office at Old No.15, New No.13,

Kannaiya Naidu Street, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

2. Kanniyappan,

Manager, Insurance Division,

Mahindra Finance Limited,

Having Office at Old No.15, New No.13,

Kannaiya Naidu Street, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

3. Suresh,

Executive in Mahindra Finance Limited,

Having Office at Old No.15, New No.13,

Kannaiya Naidu Street, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

      4. . Venkatesan,

Executive in Mahindra Finance Limited,

Having Office at Old No.15, New No.13,

Kannaiya Naidu Street, North Usman Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

5. Tafe Reach Ltd,

Rep. by its Manager Mr.Vijayan,

Old No.17, New No.43, GreemsRaad,

Opposite to MRF Building,

Chennai-600 006.

 

6. Christopher,

Tafe Reach Ltd,

Rep. by its Manager Mr.Vijayan,

Old No.17, New No.43, GreemsRaad,

Opposite to MRF Building,

Chennai-600 006.

1.  

 

Counsel for the complainant                  : M/s.S.M.NelsonNivas and 1 other

 

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 4  : M/s. Pass Associates.

Counsel for the opposite parties 5 &6:Exparte.

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.      : PRESIDENT

 

          This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay the accident claim of Rs.1,45,000/- which was claimed by the 5^th opposite party towards repair work for the car bearing No. TN 22 BL 9138 and to handover the repaired vehicle forthwith after getting the accident claim of RS.1,45,000/- and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental loss and agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 113/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.374/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he had approached the 1^st opposite party for the purpose of seeking financial assistance to purchase a car for commercial usage towards his livelihood.  The complainant further submitted that, after perusing the loan documents the vehicle loan was sanctioned under hypothecation agreement in loan Account No.1310498 to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- in which, the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- is to be paid at the rate of Rs.9,120/- per month in 36 equated monthly installments. The complainant further submitted that he had purchased the car Viz Tata Indica (DLE) with bearing registration No. TN 22 BL 9138. The vehicle was also insured with the Cholamandalam MS General Insurance company Ltd a Policy No.3368/00397658/000/00 dated:05.10.2010. The said vehicle insurance period valid upto 04.10.2011. The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party on 01.10.2011 to pay the renewal amount for insurance and thereby the complainant to pay the renewal amount of Rs. 14,245/-  to himself that the amount was credited to renew the insurance policy for further period vide the receipt dated:01.10.2011 for Rs.14,245/-. Subsequently on 09.10.2011 unfortunately the complainant’s vehicle had met with an accident in Anna Nagar and the case was registered before Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Team and the accident certificate on 13.10.2011. The complainant further submitted that the vehicle was damaged, he had informed the same to the 1^stopposite party for accident claim to the vehicle. The complainant met the 2^nd and 4^th opposite party for such claim. To his shock and dismay he came to know that the insurance policy was lapsed and it was not renewed. The complainant produced the insurance renewal receipt which he had paid on 01.10.2011 and after realizing fraud made by 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party accepts the mistake. The complainant was informed by the 6^th opposite party that the claim amount was sanctioned by the insurance company, he had approached the 6^th opposite party to get the repaired car. But instead of delivering the repaired car he had forcefully handed over the insurance policy from 14.10.2011 to 13.10.2012 to the complainant’s vehicle which is fabricated document created by 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th opposite parties.  They had submitted the same to the 1^st opposite party by mentioning the accident date as 15.10.2011.  The complainant further submitted that 1^st opposite party perusing the documents had found that the accident was took place on 09.10.2011 and not on 15.10.2011 and thereby rejected the claim amount to the complainant. Apart from that 5^th opposite party has also insisted the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- for repair work.  The complainant further submitted that issue a legal notice to opposite parties and reply on 02.04.2012 denying the allegations. The complainant prayed  claim award of Rs.1,45,000/- for deficiency of service committed by the 1^st and 2^ndopposite parties.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 4 IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties 1 to 4  in their written version states that the complaint is not maintainable in law and in facts and there is no lack of services. The opposite party submitted that MMFSL is a  non banking financial company rendering financial assistance for its customers to buy vehicles under hypothecation and also avail personal loan for its existing customers. The complainant availed vehicle loan for Rs.2,60,000/- under the loan agreement no.13160498 dated 23.10.2010 for purchasing a Tata Indica Car Bearing registrations No. TN 22 BL 9138 and availed personal loan for Rs.50,000/- under the agreement no.16655112 dated 09.08.2010. Theses opposite parties further submitted that on 30.09.2011 MIBL staff approached the complainant reminding the necessity and importance of renewal of vehicle insurance in respect of the vehicle in reference making it clear that MIBL is acting only as broker and not by itself as the insurance company.  These opposite parties submitted that on 01.10.2011 the complainant came to the branch office at MIBL at Chennai to pay the insurance renewal premium amount without the required and mandatory documents. The cashier of MIBL refused to receive the amount in the absence of the relevant documents.  However, the complainant compelled the cashier to accept the amount assuring that he would furnish the requisite documents within a day.  While receiving the cash, the complainant was categorily informed that steps will be taken for renewing the insurance only after furnishing the requisite documents and that the coverage under the insurance would come to play only after renewal of insurance policy after submitting all the requisite documents.  The complainant has assured that he would furnish the required documents on next day and after the complainant requested some more time for furnish the requisite documents, upon which the MIBL has forwarded the same to M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., and that the insurance was renewed with effect from 14.10.2011 and the renewed insurance policy was informed to complainant and collect the same. The complainant sent a legal notice on 15.03.2012 to 1^st opposite party which was replied the same on 30.03.2012.  further that the present complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties namely M/s.mahindra Insurance Brokers Service Ltd., MIBL  and M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency inservice and unfair trade practice  on the part of opposite parties 1 to 6?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed?  To what extent?

The complainant have filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked on their side.The opposite parties has filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 and B2 document is marked on his side.5 and 6^thOpposite parties were set Ex-parte.

4.POINT NO :1

                 The complainant approached the 1^st opposite part for financial assistance to purchase a car for usage towards his livelihood and he was sanctioned a vehicle loan for Rs.2,60,000/- in which Rs.1,30,000/- was to be paid by the complainant as advance amount and balance amount has to be paid 36 EMI at Rs.9120/- per month the vehicle was purchased 06.10.2010 in the name of complainant under hypothecation agreement to the 1^st opposite party and insurance for the vehicle from 05.10.2010 to 04.10.2011 was also taken by the 1^st opposite party with Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd., These facts were admitted by the opposite parties also.  But as per the complainant version he has paid installment regularly without any default and on 01.10.2011 he approached the 1^st opposite party for renewal of the said insurance and he was informed by the 3^rd opposite party that Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd., was amalgamated with the 1^st opposite party and thereby insisted to pay renewal amount of Rs.14,245/- which was paid by the complainant for which receipt was issued on 01.10.2011 by the 1^st opposite party but unfortunately 09.10.2011 the vehicle met with an accident and a case was registered on 13.10.2011 and when the complainant approached to the 1^st opposite party and requested accident claim, the complainant was directed to meet the 4^th opposite party and he came to know that the insurance policy was lapsed and not renewed and later the 2^nd opposite party accepted the mistake and asked 5^th opposite party to under take the repair work and the 6^th opposite party given a estimation of Rs.80,000/- for repair work but later claimed Rs.1,45,000/- towards repair and thereby cheated the complainant and further according to the complainant when the complainant approached the 6^th opposite party for delivery of repaired car he has handed over insurance policy from 14.10.2011 to 13.10.2012 which is a fabricated document by opposite party and they submitted the documents to the 1^st opposite party by falsely mentioning the accident date 15.10.2011 to get accident benefit and thereafter according to the complainant the 1^st opposite part rejected the claim amount by perusing the documents and found that the accident took place on 09.10.2011 and therefore the complainant prayed for direction to the 1^st opposite party to pay the accident claim amount of Rs.1,45,000/- to the 5^th opposite party towards the repair work and directing to handed over the repaired vehicle to the complainant and for other reliefs.

         5. But on the other hand opposite party 1 to 4 contended that Mahindra Insurance Brokers Services Ltd., referred as MIBL is subsidiary of Mahindra &mahinda Financial Services Ltd., known as MMFSL and MIBL is acting as only broker and not by itself as insurance company and further contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of MIBL and Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Ltd., and further stated that Cholamandalam Insurance Company amalgamated with the 1^st opposite party and contended that on 01.10.2011 the complainant came to pay insurance renewal premium without required documents namely RC and existing insurance policy and he was advised to submit those documents for renewal of policy but the complainant compelled the cahsier to accept the amount for which a receipt was issued. But the policy was renewed from 14.10.2011 after providing all the documents by the complainant.  But the accident took place on 09.10.2011 before renewal of policy and therefore contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and further contended the complainant is a defaulter in payment of installments and suppressing the same. The complaint has been filed.

              6. It is found from Ex.A1 that the vehicle was registered in the name of complainant on 06.10.2010 and hypothecated with 1^st opposite party.  The vehicle was insured with Cholamandalam General Insurance Com. Ltd., from 05.10.2010 to 04.10.2011 under Ex.A3,  it is found from Ex.A5 the vehicle met with accident on 09.10.2011 but it was reported to police on 13.10.2011 after four days, there is no document filed by the complainant to show that the accident was immediately reported to the insurance company as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant has not filed the reply dated 13.03.2012 given by the 1^st opposite party for the legal notice issued 15.03.2012 by the complainant.  The said reply was marked as Ex.B2 it is found in the reply the 1^st opposite party has clearly stated that on 01.10.2011 the complainant has not submitted the required documents for renewal of policy and he was informed that only on submission such documents policy will be renewed and accordingly it was renewed only on 14.10.2011 and the complainant was intimated to collect the renewed policy.  Further as per the reply only 16.03.2012 the 1^st opposite party received notice about the accident and denied the contention that they prepared the documents to claim insurance amount.  Similarly the complainant failed to file the reply dated 02.04.2012 sent by the 5^th opposite party which is stated in para.10 of the complaint.  When an accident took place the claim form for damages has to be submitted by the owner of the vehicle but the complainant has not filed any claim form.  Though it is stated in the complaint that opposite party 2 to 5 have submitted accident claim to the 1^st opposite party which was rejected by 1^st opposite party for wrongly mentioning the accident date even for this there is no documentary proof filed by the complainant.  It is for the complainant to prove that he has submitted the required documents on 01.10.2011 to the 1^st opposite party for renewal of policy.  But the complainant failed to prove the same.  Though in the written argument the complainant says that he has submitted required documents on 01.10.2011 there is no averment with regard to the same either in the complaint or in the legal notice dated 15.03.2012,  therefore merely because of renewal receipt given by the 1^st opposite party it cannot be legally presumed that the policy was renewed from 05.10.2011.  The complainant has not filed even the renewed policy from 14.10.2011 to 13.10.2012 which was handed over to him by the insurance company as stated in para.8 of the complaint.   According to the 1^st opposite party as on 30.03.2012 the complainant is due Rs.18,240/- towards vehicle loan and Rs.15,888/- towards personnel loan which was also suppressed by the complainant.  Further as there is no proof to show that Cholamandalam General Insurance Com. Ltd., amalgamated with the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is also found to be bad for non-joinder to necessary parties. The MIBL was also not added as a party.  The contract of the insurance being made in good faith made by both the parties, the complainant must have approached this commission without suppressing the material facts.  But in the present complaint as stated above the complainant has filed this complaint by suppressing material facts.  The complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties 1 to 6 has committed deficiency in service. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1  there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of  Opposite parties 1 to 6 as alleged in the complaint.  Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.    

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by usin the open Commission on this the 18^th day of August 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	06.10.2010	Registration certificate in the name of Complainant.
Ex.A2	11.10.2010	Carriage permit in the name of the complainant.
Ex.A3	14.10.2010	Insurance in the name of the complainant.
Ex.A4	01.10.2011	Insurance renewal receipt issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5	13.10.2011	Accident Certificate
Ex.A6	15.10.2011	Job slip given by 6th opposite party.
Ex.A7	15.03.2012	Legal notice to 1st opposite party.
Ex.A8	15.03.2012	Legal notice to 5th opposite party.
Ex.A9		Postal receipt.
Ex.A10	17.03.2012	Returned RPAD.
Ex.A11	11.04.2012	Criminal complaint preferred by the complainant.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 4:

                                                         

Ex.B1	05.08.2014	Power of Attorney.
Ex.B2	30.03.2012	Reply Notice.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT