DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 219/07 (Old Case No. 704/2004)
Ranbir Singh (now deceased)
Through his Legal Heirs
1. Smt. Om Shri (Wife)
W/o Late Sh. Ranbir Singh
2. Sh. Amit Kumar (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Ranbir Singh
3. Sh. Sumit (Son)
S/o Late Sh. Ranbir Singh
4. Ms. Monika Rani (Daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Ranbir Singh
All R/o 16/498, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi -Complainants
Vs
1. Standard Chartered Bank ] Complainant got his
Through its Managing Director ] dispute settled with
Allahabad Bank Building, ] OP-1 vide order
17, Parliament Street, ] dated 9.11.2009.
New Delhi.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Division No. XXVI, 2nd Floor,
EMCA House, 23/238, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi – 110002 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 02.06.2004 Date of Order: 06.08.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Very interesting facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the complainant took loan of Rs. 2,88,030/- in the year 2001 for 4 years from the OP-1 Bank for purchasing Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. HP03A1918 and agreed to refund the amount in equal monthly instalments. The complainant got the said vehicle insured from OP-2. While the vehicle was insured with OP-2, the car met with an accident and was totally damaged. The complainant lodged his claim with OP-2 vide his claim No. 1118/2001 on 17.1.2002 under policy No. 6117984 which was valid from 4.4.2001 to 3.4.2002 and in the said claim the complainant apprised the OP-2 about the damage incurred to the vehicle of the complainant. It is again stated that the claim was lodged with OP-2 insurance company on 17.1.2002. In the meantime, the complainant kept on depositing the monthly instalments towards the payment of the loan amount with OP-1 till 1.1.2004. However, OP-1 Bank took/seized the vehicle in question from the service centre and sold it for Rs. 80,000/- and adjusted the same against the loan amount without issuing any notice before or after the sale to the complainant. The OP-2 did not settle the claim but, however, vide letter dated 16.12.2003, OP-2 informed the complainant that the OP-2 needed to have bank clarification from the complainant and unless the same is not given they will not give claim to the complainant and that in fact the OP-2 was telling the complainant that they shall pay only to OP-1 bank. The OP-1 bank continued to send notices mentioning different amounts to the complainant and in one such notices the amount of Rs. 2037.86p was demanded after selling seized car of the complainant while in fact the complainant had already paid the entire outstanding amount and thus instead of issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the complainant, the OP-1 kept on continuing harassing the complainant by overcharging interest over interest. It is stated that the OP-2 company has also not passed the claim of the complainant who is a poor taxi driver and earn his livelihood by running a taxi and the car in question was also purchased for running a taxi. Despite several notices sent to the OP-1 Bank, OP-1 Bank did not issue NOC to the complainant. When the complainant could not get any response from other channels, he has filed the present complaint pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for issuing following directions to the OPs:
“(a) Refund of Rs. 1 Lac charged extra by respondent bank
- Direct the respondent insurance company to pass the insurance claim of the complaint Rs. 3.41 lacs (Cost of Vehicle) with interest from 17.01.2002 till today
- Direct the opposite party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs each as claimed in para of the complaint, and
- Direct the respondent bank to issue NOC form-35 and restrain them sending 138 notices and filing 138 cases moreover direct them to withdraw case filed by them
- Direct the opposite party to pay the complainant interest at the rate of 18% p.a. compounded at monthly rests on the amount of Rs. 4 Lacs from 17.01.2002 till the date of filing this complaint, and
- Direct the opposite party to pay the complainant pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 2 Lac till the date of making payment
- Award costs of the complaint in favour of the complainant.”
In its reply, OP-1 bank has inter-alia stated that the complainant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the car loan agreement in as much as the PDCs issued by him got dishonoured almost every month and, therefore, OP-1 bank was constrained to repossess and sell the said car. The sale proceeds of the said car were duly credited into the car loan account of the complainant. It is submitted that as there was an outstanding amount in the car loan account of the complainant, NOC could not have been issued to him. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In its reply OP-2 has inter-alia stated that the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and hence the claim is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is also not a consumer as defined in the Act. It is stated that the complainant was using the vehicle in question as a taxi and, therefore, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy bearing No. 362600/2001/6117984 (NEW) valid from 4.4.2001 to 3.4.2002 in respect of the vehicle in question. It is further stated that OP-2 on receipt of the claim dated 17.1.2002 from the complainant appointed M/s K.R. Arora & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss suffered by the vehicle in question in the alleged accident, who after inspecting the vehicle and other estimates, gave his report dated 15.3.2003 to OP-2 on 21.3.2003 wherein the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 75,000/- on cash loss basis for which the complainant had given a consent letter dated 3.3.2003; that after receiving the said report, OP-2 wrote a letter dated 27.3.2003 to the complainant to submit the documents i.e. RC in original, Original Police report, medical legal certificate of the driver if he suffered any injuries and get the Chassis number of the vehicle corrected in the RC as it was wrongly mentioned; that the OP-2 received reply dated 14.5.2003 to the said letter; that thereafter letter dated 22.5.2003 was written by OP-2 to the complainant for producing the vehicle for physical verification which was followed by reminders dated 4.6.2003 and 7.8.2003 but the complainant did not produce the vehicle and instead wrote a letter dated 18.8.2003 to inspect the vehicle in Meerut which was got confirmed by OP-2 from surveyor and the report was received on 25.8.2003; that it came to the knowledge of OP-2 that the complainant had already disposed of the salvage without the consent of the OP-2 and the OP-2 wrote letters dated 3.11.2003 and 12.2003 for clarification and it was informed by the complainant that OP-1 had disposed off the salvage without the knowledge and consent of the complainant; that thereafter OP-2 wrote letters dated 29.12.2003 and 24.1.2004 to OP-1 but no reply was received by the complainant; that OP-2 again wrote a letter dated 27.5.2004 to the OP-1 for giving NOC so that amount of the claim could be paid to the complainant but no reply was received from OP-1; that OP-2 again wrote a letter dated 22.6.2004 to the complainant to send the duly signed payment voucher but the complainant did not send the same and, therefore, the payment of Rs. 75,000/- as approved by the competent authority could not be made to the complainant. It is stated that OP-2 is still ready and willing to pay Rs. 75,000/- as per surveyor’s report and the consent letter given by the complainant, in case the complainant gave discharge voucher and NOC from OP-1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinders to the written statement of OP-1 & 2. In his rejoinder to the reply of OP-2, complainant has not denied the averments with regard to the assessment of loss to the car in question to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- on cash loss basis by the surveyor and the complainant’s giving the consent letter dated 3.3.2003 and that the complainant did not file the discharge voucher and NOC from OP-1.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Syed Kausar Abbas, Assistant Manager (Legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-1. OP-2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Gulshan Ahuja, Divisional Manager in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant.
From the perusal of the order-sheet dated 09.11.2009 recorded by our predecessors, it becomes crystal clear that the matter has already been settled by the complainant with OP-1 and no dispute or any grievances to be resolved between them.
What are the terms of the said settlement between the complainant and OP-1 are not made known to this forum. Therefore, we do not know what are the terms and conditions of the said settlement agreement between the complainant and OP-1? We also do not know whether OP-1 has given or has agreed to give NOC to the complainant for onward transmission to OP-2? As stated hereinabove, in rejoinder to the reply of OP-2, the complainant has not denied the averment with regard to the assessment of loss to the vehicle in question to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- on cash loss basis by the assessor and giving the consent letter in this behalf by him. In his affidavit, he has just reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Therefore, in our considered opinion, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2. OP-2 is still ready and willing to pay Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant’ towards the claim amount subject to the complainant’s giving discharge voucher and NOC from OP-1 bank. Complainant’s LRs may do the needful and obtain the amount of Rs. 75,000/- from OP-2.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 06.08.2016
Case No. 219/07
06.08.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
