Karnataka

Raichur

CC/11/79

Sri Hussainappa S/o. Pampanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra Rural Husing insurance co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T. M. Swamy

07 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAICHUR, SATH KACHERI, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, RAICHUR-584101, KARNATAKA STATE.Ph.No. 08532-233006.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/79
 
1. Sri Hussainappa S/o. Pampanna
Age: 61, years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Umilipannur, Tq: Manvi Dist: Raichur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mahindra Rural Husing insurance co. Ltd
The Branch Manager, Mahindra Rural Housing insurance c. Ltd Branch Manvi Tq: Manvi Dist; raichur
Raichur
Karnataka
2. The Manager (claims)
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd 2nd Floor Dare House 2 NSC Bose Road CHENNAI-600001
cHENNAI-600001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. SRI. PRAKASH KUMAR PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MS. Smt. PRATIBHARANI HIREMATH MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. GURURAJ MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.

COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 79/2011.

THIS THE  7th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014.

P R E S E N T

1.    Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB.                                  PRESIDENT.

2.    Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl)                                 MEMBER.

3.    Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit)             MEMBER.

                                                          *****

COMPLAINANT                   :-                 Sri. Hussainappa S/. Pampanna,                                                          Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture,                                                          R/o. Umlipannur, Tq. Manvi & Dist:                                                 Raichur.

 

          //VERSUS//

 

RESPONDENTS                   :-        1.      The Branch Manager, Mahindra

                                                          Rural Housing Insurance Co. Ltd.,                                                      Branch Manvi, Tq. Manvi, Dist:                                                          Raichur.

 

2.          Manager (Claims) Cholamandalam      MS General Insurance Company         Ltd., 2nd floor Dare House 2 NSC       Bose Road, Chennai- 600001.

 

Date of institution         :-       05-11-2011.

Date of disposal             :-       07-02-2014.

Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.

Respondent No-1 represented by Sri. C. Keshavarao, Advocate.

Respondent No-2 represented by Sri. Yadavendra Katti, Advocate.

ORDER

By Sri. Prakash Kumar, President:-

          The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondents U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.       The complaint in brief is that, the complainant obtained loan of     Rs.2,00,000/- from Respondent No-1 for constructing a house and for the said purpose mortgaged the plot bearing Gram Panchayat No.56 mg;21x17ft, situated at Umlipannur village the said loan was to be repaid in six years in 12 installments for which complainant’s son Veeresh was the co-obligant. After obtaining the said loan the complainant paid few installments for which Respondent No-1 had issued receipts. The Respondent No-1 also collected for Rs.499/- towards insurance premium. However the Respondent No-1 neither gave the details of the insurance policy nor gave the insurance policy to the complainant inspite of demand made by the complainant. During the currency of the policy in the month of September-October 2010, due to heavy rain and flood in Northern Karnataka Region the house of the complainant was damaged which was reported to the Respondent No-1 who came and inspected the damage caused to the house. The surveyor appointed by the Tahasildar also came and inspected the damaged house. As security measure the government passed order for shifting the villages which are affected by heavy flood. In the said scheme the entire Umlipannur village of complainant was also shifted to some other place. Accordingly the complainant vacated the house and went to the said shifted village. The Respondent No-1 assured the complainant of claiming the loss from the insurance company. However the Respondent No-1 never intimated about the details of quantum of insurance amount claimed from the insurance company but continued demanding the repayment of loan and threatened to initiate legal proceedings for recovery of the loan amount. Inspite of complainant’s continuous oral request for details of claim from insurance company the Respondent No-1 never provided details of claim from insurance company nor furnished the policy copy. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. Hence the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for. 

3.       The Respondent No-1 filed written version stating that para-1 & 2 needs no reply. The complainant was sanctioned with housing finance of Rs.2,00,000/- payable under 12 installments in six years. The complainant has falsely stated that Respondent No-1 collected few blank signed cheques of his son. The Respondent No-1 has collected post dated cheques as security for repayment of the installments, as per the terms of the agreement. A sum of Rs.499/- towards the premium for insurance of the house was paid to Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company from the account of the complainant. It is incorrect to say that out of the sanctioned loan the complainant was paid Rs.1,75,000/-. Infact in a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.2,00,000/- as the complainant failed to meet the specific conditions prescribed for the housing finance scheme. The allegations made in para- 2 & 3 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of this Respondent. The complainant had direct contractual relationship with the insurance company which had assured that in case of any loss, damage etc., it will reimburse the same to him as per the terms and conditions stated in the policy document. Hence this Respondent No-1 has no connection with the present complaint. The complainant has not completed the house as required to be carried out according to the estimation and he also failed to pay the interest. The loss occurred on account of flood at whatsoever level of the construction made has been surveyed by the authorities of the insurance company and assessed the loss as Rs.51,597/- and the said amount was tendered by the insurance company to the Respondent No-1 by cheque dt. 29-07-2011 and the said amount was promptly credited to the account of the complainant. Respondent No-1 has no involvement in the said issue and cause of action will be against the insurance company. The assumption of the complainant that the loss of claim under the insurance would be adjustable towards full and final settlement of the loan has absolutely no basis. The complainant has never sought for details of the insurance and the claim settled by the insurance company. He falsely stated so. Respondent No-1 has no role to play in this case since there is no contact between the complainant and the Respondent No-1. The Statement of account in respect of housing loan of the complainant makes it clear about the default of his payment of installments to the Respondent No-1. There is no cause of action whatsoever to lodge the complaint by the complainant. The complainant is still in due a sum of Rs.1,13,403/- on 05-11-2011 as outstanding loan amount along with interest and other charges which was unpaid, despite issuing reminders to the complainant. Hence the complaint be dismissed in the interest of justice.

4.       The Respondent No-2 filed written version stating that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is fit to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the complaint against the Respondent No-2. At no point of time the complainant has contacted or tried to take service from Respondent No-2. Therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in whatsoever manner by the Respondent No-2. The complainant is claiming false and frivolous claim to harass and squeeze money from Respondent No-2. The Respondent No-2 settled the complainant’s loss as per the request of Branch Manager Mahindra Rural Housing Insurance Co. Ltd., Manvi. The licensed engineer and officials of the Respondent No-2 have visited the spot and assessed the loss, damage to the house of the complainant at Rs.51,597/-. The Respondent No-2 has settled the matter as per assessment and issued the cheque in the name of Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd., which was realized long back and issued discharge voucher in full and final settlement towards discharge of the claim for the loss due to flood. The complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intention to defraud the amount payable to Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd., and to squeeze the extra money form the Respondent No-2. The complainant is still living in the said house and the said house is not swept away in the flood. Hence the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5.       Complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit which is marked as PW-1 and relied on twenty three documents which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23. The Respondent No-1 to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence which is marked as RW-1 and relied on seven documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7.

6.       Arguments heard on complainant’s side.

7.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

1.       Whether the complainant proved deficiency in        service on    the part of the Respondents against him.?

 

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for.?

 

3.       What order?

 

8.       Our answer on the above points are as under:        

         

(1)   In the negative.   

 

(2)   In the negative.   

 

(3)  As per final order:

REASONS

POINT NO.1 :-

9.       It is the case of the complainant that he obtained loan from Respondent No-1 for construction of a house which was repayable in 12 installments in six years and the said house was insured with Respondent No-2 and during the currency of the said insurance policy, in the month of September-October 2010 due to heavy rain and flood the house of the complainant was damaged which was inspected by the Respondent No-1 as well as the surveyor appointed by the Tahasildar and the Respondent No-1 assured the complainant of claiming the loss from the insurance company the details of which was not provided to him by Respondent No-1 for which he is entitled and thereby the Respondents committed deficiency in service.

10.     However the case of the Respondent No-1 is that the complainant had direct contractual relationship with the insurance company and Respondent No-1 has no connection with the present complaint filed and the loss occurred to the complainant which was assessed at Rs.51,597/- was paid by the insurance company to them which was credited to the account of the complainant.

11.     The Respondent No-2 contended that at no point of time the complainant had contacted or tried to take service from Respondent No-2 and they had settled the complainant’s loss as per the request of the Branch Manager of Respondent No-1 which was realized and discharge voucher was issued as full and final settlement towards the claim for the loss due to flood.

12.     It is not at all the grievance of the complainant that the amount assessed towards the damage caused to his house was to be paid to him instead of paying the same to Respondent No-1 or that the amount paid towards damage caused to his house was much less than what it should have been. The grievance of the complainant is that the Respondents have not furnished him the details of insurance policy and claim made with the insurance company. But the complainant has not produced any material to show that the Respondents are bound to provide such information to him. It is in evidence that the amount assessed towards damage caused to the complainant’s house was paid to the Respondent No-1 which was credited to the loan account of the complainant. Therefore there is no loss or hardship caused to the complainant in any manner. Therefore deficiency in service cannot be attributed against the Respondents. The decision relied on by the complainant reported in (2010) CJ 190 (NC) is perused carefully and found not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative.

POINT NO.2:-

13.     As complainant has failed to prove his case and failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered in Negative.

POINT NO.3:-

14.     As per order below:

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

          There is no order as to cost.

Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on  07-02-2014)

 

 

Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath,                Sri. Gururaj                     Sri. Prakash Kumar,

           Member.                                            Member.                                 President,

District Consumer Forum Raichur.      District Consumer Forum Raichur.      District Consumer Forum Raichur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI. PRAKASH KUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MS. Smt. PRATIBHARANI HIREMATH]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. GURURAJ]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.