Haryana

Kaithal

240/21

Vikramjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Finance,SER LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Seth Pal Rawat

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.240/2021.

                                                     Date of institution: 08.10.2021.

                                                     Date of decision:17.04.2023.

Vikramjeet Singh son of Sh. Inderjeet Singh r/o House No.777, Opposite Zila Sainik Board, HUDA Sector-19, Part-2, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Mahindra Finance, SER Ltd., Kaithal Lekh Raj Auto Plaza Pvt. Ltd., O/o First Floor, 1038/11, Ram Sheel Bhavan, Dhand Road, Kaithal, Phone No.01746-228877 through its Authorized Dealer/Manager.
2. Mahindra Finance, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 through its M.D./authorized person/concerned authority. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Seth Pal Rawat, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Vikramjeet Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the father of complainant purchased a car Mahindra and Mahindra bearing registration No.MA1YT2HJE6J18396 on finance from the OP No.1 and the said vehicle was got insured with Kotak Life Insurance Policy No.CR000020 3570599 3570599 valid for the period w.e.f. 25.05.2017 to 24.03.2018.  The father of complainant paid installments regularly but unfortunately, he died on 04.04.2017.  The insurance company paid the amount of Rs.6,95,270/- in the loan account and remaining amount of Rs.74,730/- was paid to the account of complainant/nominee.  The complainant applied for the NOC of above-said vehicle with the OPs but they did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents; that the deceased father of complainant namely Inderjit Singh Virk son of Pritam Singh availed a loan for purchase of vehicle i.e. Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration No.HR-31K-0070 and the said loan was secured by Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance at the option of his late father.  The said loan was covered for Rs.7,70,000/- by the Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance.  After receiving the intimation of death, the matter was settled by insurance company and the outstanding amount of Rs.6,95,270/- was paid by insurance company and remaining amount to the tune of Rs.74,730/- was credited to the customer’s nominee account.  As such, the loan account was settled and the complainant was issued NOC, which he received and in token of receiving, he appended his signature with mobile number.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

4.             Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the father of complainant purchased a car Mahindra and Mahindra bearing registration No.MA1YT2HJE6J18396 on finance from the OP No.1 and the said vehicle was got insured with Kotak Life Insurance Policy No.CR000020 3570599 3570599 valid for the period w.e.f. 25.05.2017 to 24.03.2018.  The father of complainant paid installments regularly but unfortunately, he died on 04.04.2017.  The insurance company paid the amount of Rs.6,95,270/- in the loan account and remaining amount of Rs.74,730/- was paid to the account of complainant/nominee.  The complainant applied for the NOC of above-said vehicle with the OPs but they did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

5.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops argued that the loan account was settled and the complainant was issued NOC, which he received and in token of receiving, he appended his signature with mobile number.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the Ops has placed on file copy of NOC, which is Mark-A on the file, from which it is clear that the NOC was issued by the Ops to the complainant on 17.11.2021.

6.         From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 08.10.2021 and NOC was issued by the OPs on 17.11.2021 i.e. after filing the present complaint.  So, we direct the OPs to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion, the application moved by the OPs for dismissal of present complaint is hereby dismissed and resultantly, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against the OPs.  So far the evidence in the present case is concerned, this is summary trial, which can be decided without adducing the evidence.     

7.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:17.04.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.