Haryana

StateCommission

A/800/2015

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIV KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      800 of 2015

Date of Institution:      22.09.2015

Date of Decision :      27.04.2016

 

ICICI Bank, BVI-1269/5, JK Residency, Gobindpuri Road, Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party No.4

Versus

 

1.      Shiv Kumar son of Nathi Ram, Resident of House No.28A, New Jain Nagar Colony, Opposite Hotel Saphire, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      IFFCO Tokio GIC, Plot No.2 B & C, Sector 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3.      IFFCO Tokio GIC, Corporate Office, 4^th and 5^th Floor, IFFCO Tower, Plot No.3, Sector-29, Gurgaon.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Jasbir Singh, proxy counsel for Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

ICICI Bank, Yamuna Nagar-Opposite Party No.3 is in appeal against the order dated June 18^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.479 of 2009.

2.      The brief facts of the present case not disputed by the parties are that car bearing registration No.HR-58-6648, owned by Shiv Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was financed by the appellant/opposite party No.3. A sum of Rs.2,83,576/- was outstanding against the complainant towards the financed amount, as on 01.09.2013. The car was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’).  On July 25^th, 2008, the car met with an accident and was damaged.  On being informed, the Insurance Company appointed surveyor who inspected the vehicle. The accidental loss suffered by the complainant on account of damage of the car was assessed at Rs.2,99,000/-. Claim being filed and not paid by the Insurance Company, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company/opposite parties No.1 to 3, contested complaint raising plea that the car was being used as commercial vehicle at the time of accident and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

4.      ICICI Bank Limited/Opposite Party No.4 (appellant) in its reply stated that a sum of Rs.2,83,576/- was outstanding as on 09.01.2013 towards the loan amount and if any claim was passed, the opposite party No.4 was entitled to the outstanding amount.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the Insurance Company as under:-

“1.     To pay a sum of Rs.2,99,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 21.05.2009 till its realization to the complainant and;  

2.      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment, mental agony etc. and;

3.      To pay a sum of Rs.3300/- as cost of litigation expenses.”

 6.     Appellant’s Counsel urged that since the appellant was the financer/owner of the car on the date of accident, therefore, the appellant was entitled to receive the amount from the insurer.

7.      The contention raised is tenable. Since the car was hypothecated with the appellant and the complainant is liable to clear the loan amount. So, it is ordered that the amount awarded by the District Forum be adjusted towards the loan account of the complainant. However, the amount payable under the impugned order, if found excess, the same shall be refunded by the appellant to the complainant and in case it is found less than the amount payable by the complainant, then the appellant shall be entitled to recover the same by resorting to the process whatever appropriate.

8.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

 

Announced 27.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL