02/11/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas in case no.CC 148 of 2013 allowing the complaint with the direction that the Complainants were exempted from paying the balance EMIs of the loan taken by their predecessor-in-interest from the OPs with the observation that the Complainants were entitled to enjoy the vehicle without any disturbance from any corner.  The litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- was also awarded to be paid within two months from the date of order. 

            The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that their predecessor-in-interest Late Tushar Kanti Pyne purchased a XYLO E4 vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. taking financial assistance amounting to Rs.5,50,000/-. The price of the vehicle was Rs.7,74,160/-.  The predecessor-in-interest Late Tushar Kanti Pyne paid Rs.2,24,160/- as margin money.  The loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- along with insurance premium of Rs.75,000/- for consecutive three years excepting the first year on condition that the borrower would repay the loan amount, insurance premium along with interest by 48 EMIs @ Rs.17,290/- starting on and from 24/05/11.  The OPs convinced the predecessor of the Complainants that he should open Health Insurance Policy against the said loan for better future.  Unfortunately, on 17/09/12 the predecessor of the Complainants became seriously ill and he was subsequently shifted to Asian Institute of Gastroenterology at Hyderabad and admitted there on 05/10/12.  He expired on 19/10/12 leaving the Complainants as the legal heirs.  The Complainants are being harassed by the OPs and they are also threatening to take forcible possession of the said vehicle.  But because of having insurance policy the Complainants should be exempted from paying any EMI relating to the said vehicle.  Under such circumstances, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 by taking loan.  He had one accidental insurance policy which was renewable year to year.  The policy expired in May 2012 as it was not renewed and in the month of October Tushar Kanti Pyne expired.  It is submitted that Cholamandalam Insurance Company has not been impleaded in this case and the complaint suffers from defect of party.  It is submitted that Tushar Kanti Pyne was suffering from gastroenterological problem as stated in paragraph 6 of the complaint.  It is contended that it was not a case of accidental death and, as such, there is no insurance coverage on such death. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants was persuaded by the OPs to open the insurance policy and there was one time premium.  It is submitted that the original policy was lying in the custody of the OPs of the complaint.  

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants purchased the vehicle from the Appellants by taking loan.  From the certificate of insurance it appears that the period of insurance was from 24/05/11 to 23/05/12 and the nature of the policy was accidental death and accidental medical reimbursement.  It is, therefore, clear that the insurance was renewable from year to year and after the death of Tushar Kanti Pyne on 19/10/12 the EMI was stopped.  Evidently, the insurance coverage was not available as it was not renewed within time.  In view of the terms of the policy which are binding on both sides, the Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.  The Complainants, therefore, are not entitled to get any relief. 

            The Appeal is allowed.  We set aside the impugned judgment and order.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.