Haryana

StateCommission

A/339/2017

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GOYAL

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :      339 of 2017

Date of Institution:     27.03.2017

Date of Decision :      08.03.2018

 

 

1.      Tata Motor Finance Limited (Earlier Tata Finance Limited), Pushpa Complex, Hisar, Haryana.

2.      Tata Motor Finance Limited (Earlier Tata Finance Limited), Bijjol Complex, First Floor, N.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai -400071.

          Both through their authorized signatory available at 9^th Floor, I-Think Techno Campus, Off. Pokhran Road No.2, Thane (W) 400601.  

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

Versus

 

 

Pawan Kumar son of Mahender Singh, resident of House No.15, Heea Chowk, Dadri, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member       

                            

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for appellants

                             Shri J.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          TATA Motor Finance Limited-opposite parties No.1 & 2 (for short ‘TATA Finance’) are in appeal against the order dated January 11^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed to pay Rs.3,70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint, that is, December 31^st, 2011 till payment; Rs.5000/- harassment and Rs.1000/- litigation expenses to Pawan Kumar-complainant on account of theft of his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-19B-3331.

2.      The complainant purchased vehicle No.HR19B-3331 from Telmos Automobiles Limited, Hisar. The vehicle was financed by TATA Finance on December 17^th, 2004.  On March 31^st, 2006 the vehicle was stolen.  First Information Report (FIR) No.95 was lodged on April 14^th, 2006.  The complainant informed TATA Finance and supplied requisite documents for submission of claim with the Insurance Company.   TATA Finance did not pay any heed to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Learned counsel for the TATA Finance has urged that TATA Finance had no liability in any manner to get the vehicle insured.  The loan contract of the complainant was transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank.  All the rights and liabilities stood vested in Kotak Mahindra Bank.

4.      As per Contract Details of Tata Motors Limited (Annexure R-6), the amount of insurance for the four years (period for which the vehicle was financed) was already charged by TATA Finance at the time of financing the vehicle.   So, it was the responsibility of the TATA Finance to get the vehicle insured.  Such thus being the position, the submission raised is repelled. 

5.      The portfolio of the contract was transferred by the TATA Finance in the name of Kotak Mahindra in the year 2007 whereas the vehicle was stolen on March 31^st, 2006.  Thus, this plea is also hereby rejected.  So, it was the responsibility of the TATA Finance to indemnify the complainant.

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, no irregularity is discernible in the impugned order. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 08.03.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK