By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This  is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case:-  The Complainant's son Mr. Alex K Sebastian was the owner of motor cycle bearing Registration number KA-05-KE-6578 Splendor plus. The Complainant's son had availed vehicle loan for the said motor cycle from Opposite Party and also was a premium holder of group insurance of Opposite Party. The Complainant's son was died on 11.06.2018 due to Cardiac arrest. As per the group insurance run by the Opposite Party, if the loanee died, the balance outstanding in the loan account of vehicle will be closed without any further payment. After the death of Complainant's son, an agent of Opposite Party  approached the Complainant at his house and demanded to pay Rs.30,000/- as the loan outstanding and also told that the said amount would be refunded to Complainant, once the group insurance policy is processed.  Believing the words of Opposite Party the Complainant  paid Rs.30,000/- to Opposite Party and also submitted group insurance claim form along with death certificate of his son. The Opposite Party had told the Complainant that the group insurance policy would be processed within 30.12.2018. Even after 30.12.2018, the Complainant had not received back the assured amount of Rs.30,000/- and in the month of January 2019, when the Complainant  telephoned told the Opposite Party to speed up the claim process, the Opposite Party  told the Complainant that due to their network error, the claim could not be processed within time and assured the payment within April 2019, but the Opposite Party has not performed as agreed. Again the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party in the month of June 2019, then the Opposite Party  told that the claim file and associated documents were sent to head office for verification and claim will be settled in a short time. But till now the Opposite Party has not paid the amount. In March 2020, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and strongly demanded to give the amount, but against the policy terms, the Opposite Party  told that the claim could not be approved and amount could not be given to Complainant. The act of Opposite Party is unfair trade practice and the Opposite Party has the liability to pay the amount to Complainant. The act of Opposite Party has caused high degree of mental agony and financial hardship to Complainant and his family. The Complainant now realize that the Opposite Party will not pay the amount without the recourse of law, hence this complaint.  Therefore the Complainant prays before the Commission to:-

1. Direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of payment.
2. Direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the

               Complainant as compensation against the unfair trade practice and against   

               negligence of opposite parties.

c) Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as  cost of this proceeding and

d) To grant any other reliefs that this Commission deems fit to grant. 

          3. Notice was served upon the Opposite Party, who appeared before the Commission and filed version. 

          4. Contents of version in brief:-  It is true that the Complainant's son Mr. Alex K Sebastian was the owner of motor cycle splender plus bearing number KA-05-KE 6578 and he had availed vehicle loan from the Opposite Party and died on 11.06.2018. The vehicle was insured with Kotak Insurance and as stated in the 1^st  paragraph of the complaint the Complainant was not the premier holder of insurance of the Opposite Party. As stated in the complaint, since no group insurance is run by the Opposite Party, the clause stated by the Complainant that if the loanee died, the balance outstanding in the loan account of vehicle would be closed without any further payment, is believed to be false and fallacious and hence it is denied by the Opposite Party. As stated, after the death of the Complainant's son, on no occasion the agent of the Opposite Party had approached the Complainant at his house nor had demanded the payment of Rs.30,000/- to the loan outstanding. Also as stated in the complaint, the Opposite Party had not told the Complainant that the amount would be refunded to Complainant, once the group insurance policy is processed and hence all the above statements are denied by the Opposite Party. All the assertions made in the paragraph 2 of the complaint are not true and hence  denied by the Opposite Party.  It is stated that by believing the words of the Opposite Party the Complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- to Opposite Party and also submitted the group insurance claim form along with death certificate of his son to Opposite Party, is not true and all these statements are made by burying the real and true facts. Also as stated, at any instance the Opposite Party had not told the Complainant that the group insurance policy would be processed within 30.12.2018. Also it is alleged that "even after 30.12.2018, the Complainant had not received back the assured amount of Rs.30,000/- and in the month of January 2019 the Complainant had telephoned the Opposite Party to speed up the claim process and the Opposite Party then told the Complainant that due to their network error the claim could not be processed within time and assured the payment within 2019 but Opposite Party had not performed as agreed" is not true and all the said allegation is denied by the Opposite Party. As stated, the Complainant had not again contacted  the  Opposite Party in the month of June 2019 nor told him that the claim file and associated documents were sent to head office for verification and the claim would be settled in short time, hence it is denied by the Opposite Party. Also as stated in the complaint in the month of March 2020, the Complainant had not contacted the Opposite Party nor demanded the amount and also on no occasion the Opposite Party has not told to the Complainant that the claim could not be approved and amount cannot be given to the Complainant. Also as stated, the Opposite Party had not done any act of unfair trade practices and the Opposite Party is not at all liable to pay any amount to the Complainant and such frivolous contentions are made by the Complainant with a fraudulent and dishonest intention, only to put the Opposite Party in trouble. All these false allegations are made by the Complainant for the sake of this complaint and as stated in  para 3 of the complaint, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant. Since the Opposite Party is only a financer who provided vehicle loan and not the insured company, the Opposite Party is not a necessary party to the Complaint. Also no relief sought in the complaint is maintainable as well. The true fact is that, the Opposite Party had provided vehicle loan to the Complainant’s son which is to be repaid in instalment and the vehicle was insured with Kotak Insurance. The Opposite Party is only the financer who provided loan and all the claim had to be done by the insurance company. Here the Complainant has closed the loan outstanding and there exist no dispute between the Complainant and Opposite Party. If the Complainant is having any claim it has to be made to the insurance company which is not the Opposite Party. Since there is non-jointer of parties and in the absence of necessary party as Opposite Party, the complaint is not maintainable. As per the knowledge of the Opposite Party, no claim has ever been made by the Complainant to the insurance company. Hence, all the above trifle contentions of the Complainant in the complaint are strongly denied and objected by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party was acting strictly as per agreement and so far no unjustified act was done by the Opposite Party.  Also by any act the Opposite Party had caused any sort of stress, mental pressure, injury or damages to the Complainant . Also to claim compensation as per the Consumer protection Act there was no deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Party or the Opposite Party has not done any sort of unfair or restrictive trade practices or by the act of the Opposite Party, no damages have been caused to the Complainant. Hence the complaint itself is not maintainable and hence the Opposite Party prayed before the Commission to dismiss the above complaint with cost.

          5. Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant,  Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1.  Ext.A1 is  the Copy of  Registration Certificate of the vehicle and Ext.A2 is the death  certificate of Complainant’s son.  The Opposite Party had no oral  or documentary evidence and hence  both the parties were heard on 11.11.2022.

          6. Considering the Complaint, Version,  Affidavit of the Complainant,  the oral depositions of the  Complainant,  the documents marked from his side and the arguments in hearing we raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether there has been any unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so,  relief and cost..?

7. Point No.1:- The  allegation  of  the  Complainant  is  that  the   Complainant’s

son was the owner of a Motor Cycle with Registration  No.KA-05-6578  for which a vehicle loan was availed from the Opposite Party and the Complainant’s son, due to cardiac arrest,  died on 11.06.2018.  As per the group insurance  run by the Opposite Party, if  the loanee died, the  balance outstanding  in the loan account of vehicle would be closed without any further payment.  But,  after the death of his son,  the Opposite Party collected Rs.30,000/-  from the Complainant, being the  outstanding loan amount,  telling that the amount would be refunded to the Complainant when the group insurance policy is processed.  Afterwards, the Complainant  submitted claim for group insurance and requested the Opposite Party on several occasions but the Opposite Party denied payment telling one or other excuses and finally in March 2020, the Opposite Party told the Complainant that the claim could not be approved and the amount cannot be given to the Complainant,  which is unfair trade practice and the Opposite Party is  liable to pay the amount with interest,  cost,  compensation etc.   In version,  the Opposite Party  has admitted the ownership of the motor cycle and the availing of loan from the Opposite Party but denied all other allegations of the Complainant.  According to the Opposite Party:-

1.  The vehicle  was  insured  with Kotak Insurance Company.
2. The Complainant was not the premier holder of insurance of the Opposite Party.
3. No group insurance was run by the Opposite Party.
4. The statement of the Complainant that if the loanee died the balance outstanding in the loan account of the vehicle would be closed without further payment is false and fallacious.
5. On  no occasion,  after the death of the Complainant’s son,  the agent of the Opposite Party had approached  the Complainant at his house or demanded the payment, of Rs.30,000/-  to the loan outstanding. 
6. The Opposite Party had not told to the Complainant that the amount would be refunded to the Complainant,  once the group insurance policy was processed.
7. The Complainant had not paid Rs.30,000/-  to the Opposite Party etc.

8. For  contradicting  the  above  7 points  of  contentions  of  the Opposite  Party

in Version under  para ‘8’ shown above,  the Complainant has not produced any evidence on record.  It is the admitted fact that the Complainant’s son was the owner of the Motor Cycle which was purchased by availing loan from the Opposite Party,  is evident from Ext.A1 and death of the Complainant’s son is evident from Ext.A2.  But the Complainant has not adduced any documentary or other evidences to substantiate his allegations against the Opposite Party.  No evidences are adduced by the Complainant before us to prove that:-

1. The vehicle was insured with the Opposite  Party.
2. The Complainant  was the premier holder of insurance of the Opposite Party.
3. A group insurance was run by the Opposite Party.
4. If the loanee died,  the balance in the loan account of the vehicle would be closed without further payment.
5. The Opposite Party had approached the Complainant at his residence and demanded Rs.30,000/-.
6. The Opposite Party had told the Complainant  that the amount would be refunded to the Complainant,  once the insurance policy was processed and
7. The Complainant had paid Rs.30,000/-  to the Opposite Party etc.

9. So,  without any substantiating   documentary  or  other  evidences  before  the

Commission to prove the allegations of the Complainant against the Opposite  Party,  we are not in a position to grant any relief as prayed for by the Complainant,  but the Complaint is liable to be dismissed as no unfair trade practice is proved against the Opposite Party.  So,  point  No.1 is proved in favour of  the Opposite Party.

10.  Point No.2:- As  point  No.1 is   in  favour  of  the  Opposite  Party,  the

Complainant  is not entitled to the relief and cost as prayed for.

          In the  result,  the Complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to   the  Confidential Assistant,  transcribed  by  him and  corrected  by

me and  pronounced  in the Open Commission on this the 18^th   day of November 2022.

Date of filing:22.06.2021.

                                                                   PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER   :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          K.R. Sebastian.                        Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.       Copy of Registration Certificate.

A2.       Death Certificate.        

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

                                                                                                PRESIDENT :  Sd/-  

                                                                                                MEMBER     :  Sd