View 108 Cases Against DCB Bank
View 46316 Cases Against General Insurance
DCB Bank Limited, Represent through its Attorney holder Sri Bibhudutta Dash filed a consumer case on 27 Feb 2023 against Managing Director,Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/185/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.185/2021
DCB Bank Limited, having its Regd. Office
At 601 &602,Peninsula Business Park,
6thFloor,TowerA,Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel,Mumbai-400013 and its Kolkata Retail
Asset Office at 42/1B,Gariahat Road,Kolkata-700029,
And Regional Office at Plot No.16,Laxmi Sagar,
Cuttack Road,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda and Branch office at
Ice Factory Road,CollegeSquare,Cuttack represented
Through its Power of Attorney holder Sri Bibhudutta Dash,
S/O:Narendra Nath Dash. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
having its Corporate Office
At:BishrantiMelaram Towers,No.2/319,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,(OMR),Karapakkam,
Chennai-60097 represented through its
Managing Director.
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Radhika Complex,2ndFloor,Cuttack-Puri Road,
Jharpada,Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda-751006
At:At:BishrantiMelaram Towers,No.2/319,
Rajiv Gandhi Salai,(OMR),Karapakkam,
Chennai-60097 represented through its
Authorized person/branch manager.
S/O:BibhutiBhusan Adhikari,
At/Po-Urali,PS Cuttack(Sadar)
Dist:Cuttack, PIN:753011.
S/O:PadmaCharan Adhikari,
At/Po-Urali,PS Cuttack(Sadar)
Dist:Cuttack, PIN:753011. ...Opp. Parties..
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 05.11.2021
Date of Order: 27.02.2023
For the complainant: Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps : None.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that one Niranjan Adhikari had approached the complainant as a borrower intending to purchase one Tata ACE vehicle for which a loan hypothecation agreement bearing no.DACVBHU00420358 was executed on 17.2.16 in between the complainant and the said Niranjan Adhikari wherein Bibhutibhusan Adhikari was the guarantor. The loan amount was of Rs.3,59,497/- and the charge for the finance was of Rs.1,18,070/-. Thus, the agreement value was of Rs.4,77,567/- which was to be repaid in 47 number of monthly instalments effective from 14.1.17 till 14.11.20 @ Rs.10,161/-. The vehicle was also insured bearing insurance policy certificate no.VGC0485495000100 effective from 28.11.17 to 27.11.18. The said Tata ACE was stolen in between 24th& 25th of September,2018 near Kharavela Estate under Pahala Police Outpost which is under Balianta P.S in the district of Khurda. FIR was lodged at the Pahala Outpost but the vehicle could not be traced for which final report was submitted with ‘No Clue’. But the O.Ps no.1 & 2 who were the insurers of the insurance policy relating to the stolen Tata ACE vehicle; had repudiated the claim when made to them, vide their letter dt.25.2.2020. On the other hand, the borrower, Niranjan Adhikari is not paying the loan instalments to the complainant for which the account had been made NPA as because the borrower is liable to pay to the complainant as on 2.11.21 a sum of Rs.14,38,287/-. The complainant had issued pleader’s notice to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 but when no fruitful result yielded, he had approached this Commission seeking direction to the insurers who are O.Ps no.1 & 2 here in this case, to disburse and pay the complainant the total insurance to the tune of Rs.3,59,323/- together with interest @ 12% effective from 25.9.18 till 25.9.21 for a sum of Rs.1,29,356.28p. The complainant has also sought for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses and a compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps.
Alongwith the complaint petition the complainant has also filed copies of several documents to prove his case.
2. Out of the O.Ps as arrayed in this case, the Branch Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been deleted vide order dt.5.8.2022 and the rest of the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.15.7.2022.
3. The points for determination in this case are as follows:
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?
Point No.ii.
Out of the three points, point no. ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
Admittedly, one Niranjan Adhikari as a borrower had approached the complainant in order to purchase a Tata ACE vehicle from the O.Ps for which a loan hypothecation agreement bearing no.DACVBHU00420358 was executed on 17.2.16 in between the complainant and the said Niranjan Adhikari wherein Bibhutibhusan Adhikari was the guarantor.The loan amount was of Rs.3,59,497/- and the charge for the finance was of Rs.1,18,070/-. Thus, the agreement value was of Rs.4,77,567/- which was to be repaid in 47 number of monthly instalments effective from 14.1.17 till 14.11.20 @ Rs.10,161/-. The vehicle was also insured bearing insurance policy certificate no.VGC0485495000100 effective from 28.11.17 to 27.11.18. The said Tata ACE was stolen in between 24th& 25th of September,2018 near Kharavela Estate under Pahala Police Outpost which is under Balianta P.S in the district of Khurda. FIR was lodged at the Pahala Outpost but the vehicle could not be traced for which final report was submitted with ‘No Clue’. When the complainant had approached the O.Ps no.1 & 2 who were the insurers of the insurance policy relating to the stolen Tata ACE vehicle, they had repudiated the claim vide their letter dt.25.2.2020. On the other hand, the borrower, Niranjan Adhikari is not paying the loan instalments to the complainant for which the account had been made NPA as because the borrower is liable to pay to the complainant as on 2.11.21 a sum of Rs.14,38,287/-. In this case, though notice was issued to the O.Ps, they have neither appeared nor contested this case. As per the loan hypothecation agreement, the O.PsNo.1 & 2 are liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant as the stolen Tata ACE vehicle could not be traced out by the Pahala Police. Therefore, by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, the said O.Ps are found to be deficient in their service. Moreso, by remaining silent O.P borrower and O.P guarantor are also found to be deficient in their service towards the complainant who has rendered them financial service and is thus a beneficiary of them. Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the complainant.
Pointsno.i& iii.
From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
Case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 are thus directed to settle the claim of the complainant and pay him the ID value of Rs.3,59,323/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of theft of the vehicle i.e. dt.25.9.2018. All the O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation cost of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 27h day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.