Punjab

Sangrur

CC/183/2017

Labh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Goyal

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 183                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:    03.05.2017                                           

                                                                  Decided on:     23.08.2017

 

Labh Singh son of Kabool Singh resident of Village Ramgarh Gujjran, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Opposite Patwarkhanna, Bus Stand Road, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.   Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Sadhana House 2nd Floor, 570 P.B. Marg Worli, Mumbai, through its M.D/G.M.

3.     The New India Assurance Company Limited, Opposite Income Tax Office, Leela Bhawan Patiala through its G.M./M.D.

4.     Raj Vehicles Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.  

 

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  Amit Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&2               :     Shri Naresh Juneja  Advocate.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3                    :      Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.4                    :      Exparte                         

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                

1.             Labh Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Mahindra Verito car from the OP no.4 and same was got insured from the OP no.3 for the period from 10.06.2014 till 09.06.2015 after paying  Rs.24119/-.  The OP no.4 got the said car financed from OP no.1.   The car in question met with an accident on 18.10.2014 an intimation of which was given to the OP no.1 and 3.  The surveyor was appointed and all the required documents were submitted by the complainant. The surveyor told  that  vehicle is a total loss so he will recommend for the settlement of claim on Net off salvage basis  and assessed the amount payable as Rs.5,09,000/- .  The OP no.4 told the complainant to submit duly attested affidavit/discharge certificate to the effect that he has no objection if the claim amount is paid directly to OP no.1. The complainant submitted the affidavit to OP no.3 through OP no.4.  The OP no.1 settled the loan account of the complainant and got Rs.80,000/-  deposited  from the complainant on 18.12.2015 in full and final settlement of loan account. Thereafter the complainant received a letter dated 13.02.2017 raising a demand of Rs.6,45,911/- after which the complainant approached OP no.1 to withdraw the demand  but they did not do so. The OP no.1 told the complainant that OP no.3 has not released the amount in their favour till date so the demand of Rs.6,45,911/-  has been raised against the complainant.  The complainant requested the OPs so many times but no they did do anything. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs  no.1 and 2 be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.6,45,911/- raised vide letter dated 13.2.2017,

ii)     OP no.3  be directed to make the payment of claim amount to the OPs no.1 and 2 alongwith interest @18% per annum,

iii)    pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.100000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iv)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.4 did not appear and as such OP no.4  was proceeded exparte on 13.06.2017.

3.             In reply filed by OPs No. 1 and 2, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability,  locus standi and jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant purchased Mahindra Verito car from OP no.4  and loan was advanced to the complainant on 18.06.2014.  It is stated that the complainant never received information regarding the accident rather the same was received from its recovery agents. It is denied that  the complainant submitted the affidavit to OP no.1 . It is correct that the complainant deposited only Rs.80,000/-  with the OP no.1 but it was part payment. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1.

4.             In reply filed by the OP no.3,  legal objections  on the grounds of cause of action, jurisdiction  and premature have been taken up.  It is stated that after receiving the intimation regarding the accident  the OP no.3  appointed M/s M.L. Mehta & Co. Surveyor who assessed Rs.5,09,000/- on net salvage value.  The OP no.3 sent a letter dated 26.06.2015  to the insured for submitting RC duly cancelled from DTO Office, NOS ( without RC affidavit  duly attested by First Class Magistrate for processing the complaint).  The company has also sent performa of NOS to him.  The matter is still pending before the respondent no.3  and thus the present complaint is premature.  It is denied that the complainant submitted an affidavit to OP no.3 as alleged by him.

5.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/6 and Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/6 and closed evidence.

6.             We have perused the entire documents produced by the parties on record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  We find that it is not in dispute that the payment of claim settled amount has been  made to the complainant or  to the OPs no. 1 and 2.

7.             It is the specific legal objection of the OP no.3 i.e. insurance company that  the complaint is premature as the  claim is still pending for decision before the OP no.3.  The OP no.3 has specifically mentioned in the reply that a letter dated 26.06.2015 was sent to the complainant  for submitting RC duly cancelled from DTO office, NOS ( without RC affidavit duly attested by First class Magistrate for processing the complaint) and a performa of NOS was also sent to him. Further, it is stated that a reminder was also sent to the complainant but he did not bother to send the said documents. The complainant has not specifically denied these facts in his complaint . From the perusal of the record we find that the complainant has not produced on record any document/ receipt which shows that the complainant has submitted the demanded documents to the OP no.3.
8.             Further, the complainant has produced on record copy of letter dated 13.02.2017 issued by the OPs no.1 and 2  regarding  recall of loan agreement  wherein it has been mentioned " we hereby terminate the contract and call upon you to pay a sum of Rs.645911/- "  and  in  copy of Form 35 it has also been mentioned that the said agreement between the  complainant and OPs no.1 and 2 is terminated. So, we feel that if the agreement had also been terminated by the OPs no.1 and 2, then they have no right to issue a  notice of demand. Hence, we feel that the notice raising  a demand of Rs.6,45,911/- is illegal and wrong.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that ends of justice would be met if the complainant is directed to provide/ supply the demanded documents (as mentioned in the reply of the OP no.3) to the OP no.3 within 15 days and after receiving  these documents the OP no.3 pays the settled claim amount i.e. Rs.5,09,000/- to the OPs no.1 and 2 immediately.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                       

                               Announced

                                August 23, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                    

Member            Member                         President