Tripura

StateCommission

A/5/2021

The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Dulal Karmakar - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Karnajit De, Mr. Utpal Das

11 May 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.5.2021

 

 

1. Branch Manager,

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

Bardowali, Near T.G.B,

P.S. A.D. Nagar, P.O. A.D. Nagar,

District - West Tripura, Pin: 799003.

… … … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

•  

1. Sri Dulal Karmakar,

S/o Late Prafulla Chandra Karmakar,

Resident of Kamar Pukur Par, Dhaleswar, 

P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

2. Branch Manager, 

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

MBB College Road, upper floor of HDFC,

P.S. East Agartala, 

District - West Tripura.

… … … … … … Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                               Mr. Karnajit De, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1/Complainant:           Mr. Bhaskar Deb Barma, Adv.

For the Respondent No.2:                                  Absent.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:         11.05.2021.

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Bardowali, Agartala against the judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed by the learned District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C.62 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the respondent no.1 herein, directing the opposite party no.1, the appellant herein, and the opposite party no.2, the respondent no.2 herein, to make payment of Rs.1,50,000/- being the damage caused to the truck of the complainant, Rs.1,00,000/- for financial loss suffered by the complainant for not being used his truck and Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of litigation, in total Rs.2,55,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made in full.

2. An application is filed for condoning the delay of 421 days in preferring the appeal. The delay condoned and the appeal was admitted.
3. After admitting the appeal, the notice was served upon the parties. Though the respondent no.1-complainant has appeared after receipt of the notice, but the respondent no.2, i.e. the opposite party no.2, Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. did not appear even after receipt of notice. Again, this Commission directed the appellant to serve the notice upon the respondent-opposite party no.2 by way of ‘dosti service’. As the respondent-opposite party no.2 did not appear before this Commission, the matter is taken up in absence of the opposite party no.2.
4. Heard Mr. Karnajit De, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/Insurance Company) as well as Mr. Bhaskar Deb Barma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as complainant). None appears for the respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2).
5. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
6. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent no.1, the complainant herein, Sri Dulal Karmakar purchased one second hand truck bearing Registration No.TR-01 A 1628 from one Sri Sukumar Saha after taking loan amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party no.2 on 26.12.2014. He entered into an agreement with the opposite party no.2 at the time of taking the aforesaid loan amount. The loan amount carried interest @32.0422% per annum. As per the agreement, the complainant is to pay the loan amount by way of 42 monthly installments commencing from 05.02.2015 and the last installment would be paid on 05.06.2018. It was also agreed that if any default occurs in repayment of the loan, the rate of interest would be 36% instead of @32.0422%. It is also stated in the complaint petition that at time of agreement, the opposite party no.2, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (in short Financer) put a condition before him that their sister concern i.e. the opposite party no.1, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. the appellant herein, could operate the Insurance Policy of the truck and that the 42 installments against the loan amount had been fixed after adding the 4 years Insurance Premium of the truck. The complainant accordingly, had been paying the loan amount by installments to the opposite party no.2 as per the agreement and the opposite party no.1 also issued Insurance Policies of his truck for the period from 24.12.2014 to 23.12.2015 for the 1^st policy, for the 2^nd policy which commence from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016 and the 3^rd policy commencing from 24.12.2016 to 23.12.2017. Due to financial constraint, the complainant could not repay further installment after depositing 25 installments. The complainant further alleged that from 23.12.2017 the opposite party no.1 did not issue 4^th Insurance Policy commencing from 23.12.2017. As he did not receive the 4^th insurance policy, he had taken up the matter with the opposite party no.1, Insurance Company and the opposite party no.1 told him that he would get the policy from the opposite party no.2 as all along the premium of the policy was received from the opposite party no.2. The complainant then enquired the matter with the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Financer and the opposite party no.2 told him that he will get the insurance policy from the opposite party no.1. In his complaint petition he also stated that he visited the Offices of the opposite party no.1 and 2 again and again for getting the insurance policy of his vehicle for the period from 24.12.2017 to 23.12.2018, but he failed to get the Insurance Policy. As per advise of the opposite party no.2, Financer, the complainant deposited installment amount of Rs.9,100/- on 25.01.2018. Even after paying the said amount neither the opposite party no.1 nor the opposite party no.2 issued insurance policy for the period from 24.12.2017 to 23.12.2018.

His further case is that, on 03.03.2018 at about 11.00 p.m. some miscreants set his truck on fire when the truck was parked in front of his house. Just after the fire incident, he immediately informed the same to the Fire Service Authority and the Fire Service personnel rushed to his house and extinguished the fire from his truck. As the truck was badly damaged, he also lodged a complaint to the Police Station by way of filing FIR along with the insurance policy regarding the incident. The Fire Service Department assessed the damage of his truck amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, he raised insurance claim against his damaged truck with the opposite party no.1, Insurance Company and the opposite party no.1 after receiving the claim assured him that they will settle the claim very soon, but the opposite party no.1 did not settle the claim. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2, Financer on 25.06.2018 issued a notice to the complainant calling upon him to deposit the outstanding loan amount within 10 days from receipt of the notice. In his complaint petition he again stated that he is solely dependent upon the income from his vehicle i.e. truck and for the damage of his truck, he is facing financial crisis.

7. As his claim was not settled by the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned District Forum against the opposite parties claiming Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
8. The learned District Forum after admitting the complaint petition issued notices upon the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite party no.1 and 2 appeared through their engaged Counsel to contest the case. Both the opposite parties filed their written objections separately.
9. The opposite party no.1, the appellant herein, though submitted their written objection, but did not adduce any evidence in support of their contention made in the written objection either by producing any witness or any document. Though in their written objection the appellant-opposite party no.1 denied any sort of deficiency of service on their part towards the complainant regarding issuance of Insurance Policy in respect of the vehicle of the complainant. The opposite party no.1 asserted that when the vehicle of the complainant got fire, at that time, the said vehicle was not insured with the opposite party no.1. According to them, as the complainant did not renew the Insurance Policy of his vehicle, he is not entitled to get any amount for the damage caused to his vehicle due to the alleged fire accident.
10. The opposite party no.2, Financer by filling written objection also denied the contentions raised by the complainant in his complaint petition. The opposite party no.2 though admitted about existence of Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement having been executed between the opposite party no.2, Financer and the complainant, but the opposite party no.2 denied the other contention made in the complaint petition. The opposite party no.2 also stated that the complainant failed to pay monthly installments of the loan amount as per the agreement and due to this the complainant became defaulter.
11.  The complainant examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.1, 2 and 3 in support of his complaint and produced five documents comprising 9 sheets which were marked as Exhibit-1 series.
12. The opposite party no.1 did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence as stated above. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2 examined one witness, namely, Sri Animesh Kar, Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 as O.P.W.1.  The said witness produced four documents comprising 19 sheets which were marked as Exhibit-A series.
13. The learned District Forum after considering the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.
14. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite party no.1 has preferred the instant appeal.
15. Mr. De, Ld. Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum failed to consider the fact that the complainant did not deposit the premium of the Policy for which the 4^th Insurance Policy was not provided to him. His further contention is that if there is any negligence that negligence is on the part of the opposite party no.2, Financer not with the Insurance Company. On query by this Commission, he has admitted that the opposite party no.1, Insurance Company received the payment from very beginning from the opposite party no.2, Financer and issued policy in favour of the complainant.
16. Mr. Deb Barma, Ld. Counsel while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the appellant-opposite party no.1, Insurance Company had an agreement with the opposite party no.2, Financer for which the opposite party no.2 put a condition before the complainant that he has to purchase a insurance policy for his vehicle from their sister concern, the opposite party no.1 i.e. the appellant herein. He has also submitted that the opposite party no.2 fixed 42 installments against the loan amount after adding 4 years insurance premiums of the vehicle of the complainant i.e. the truck and admittedly, the complainant had been paying loan installments and the opposite party no.1 also issued insurance policy for the truck for 3 years by way of 3 policies. At the time of issuance of 4^th policy, the Insurance Company and the Financer took a plea that the complainant is a defaulter, but the fact remains that the Financer had given loan which is refundable by way of 42 installments after adding the 4 years insurance premium of the truck i.e. the opposite party no.2 collected the premium of the policy for 4 years from the complainant. He has also contended that if the premium for the policy for 4 years is not paid from the Financer to the Insurance Company that is their internal matter being the opposite party no.1 and 2 both are sister concern. He has finally contended that the opposite party no.2, Financer in fact forced the complainant to go for an Insurance Policy for his truck with the opposite party no.1 being their sister concern.
17. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties as well as the findings of the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment. According to us, the learned District Forum rightly observed, inter alia, that,
    • We do not find any merit on the claim of the O.P. No.1 that there was no nexus between insurance premium and the loan installments concerning the subject truck. We have carefully perused the copy of the summary of loans for the subject vehicle which has been filed by the Complainant under Firisti dated 13/09/2018. It reveals from the summery of loans concerning the subject vehicle(Statement on Account) that the O.P. No.2, the Financer had received loan installments amount along with the premium concerning the subject truck and accordingly 3 insurance policy against the subject truck were issued concerning the period 24/12/2014 to 23/12/2015 for the 1st policy, for 2nd policy commencing from 24/12/2015 to 23/12/2016 and for 3rd policy commencing from 24/12/2016 to 23/12/2017

We find that neither the O.P. No.1 nor the O.P. No.2 produced any document showing that against receipt of amount as premium for the aforesaid policies of the subject truck separate premium receipts had been issued to the Complainant. Hence, we are satisfied that the O.P. No.2 being the Financer had collected loan repayment installments which also includes insurance premium of the subject vehicle.”

18. It also appears from the statement on accounts that the complainant already deposited Rs.2,08,866/- inclusive of insurance premium till 25.01.2018 against the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which he obtained from the opposite party no.2. We are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly held that the opposite parties ought to have issued 4^th insurance policy to the complainant and arrange for reimbursing the claim amount raised by the complainant for the damage caused to his truck for no fault of his own. Thus, the opposite parties are guilty of committing unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service towards the complainant. We are of the further opinion that the appeal is also liable to be dismissed as the appellant-opposite party no.1 suppressed the fact, inter alia, that the complainant has already filed an Execution Case before the learned District Forum which is still pending.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum/Commission, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura