Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/63/2019

Rajesh Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sundaram - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay jindal

02 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

                                                                      Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2019

Date of Instt.:14.02.2019

Date of Decision: 02.03.2021

 

Rajesh Pal son of late Shri Ram Gopal, resident of village Chhaloundi, P.O.Ban, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                              …….Complainant.       

                                                   Versus

 

1.Sundaram Finance Limited, Registered office 21, Patullos Road, Chennai – 600002 through its Managing Director.

 

2. Sundram Finance Limited, SCO 103, First Floor, Commercial Complex, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its authorized Signatory.

 

3. Kotak Insurance, Sector 17, Opposite ICICI Bank, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Signatory..                                                                                                                                                   ….…Opposite parties.

 

               Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                           

 

Present:      Sh.Vijay Jindal counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.B.K.Sharma Advocate for OP No.1 and 2.

                   Sh.Mohit Tayal Advocate for OP No.3.

 ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Rajesh Pal against Sundaram Finance Limited etc.  etc.-  the opposite parties.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the Shri Ram Gopal (since deceased) was owner of Harvester Combine Make John Deere India Pvt. Limited having registration NO. HR-07T-8127. The said vehicle was financed with the OP no.1 and 2. The above said loan was also duly secured by OP No.3. It is further averred that Ram Gopal has died on 29.11.2017 and the date of death alongwith death certificate was duly communicated to the OPs by the complainant as after the death of Ram Gopal, complainant has become owner of the said combine. Upon this, the OP No.3 assured to clear all the dues of the OP No.1 as per terms and conditions and OP No.1 also assured to issue No Objections Certificate after receiving the outstanding amount.  It is averred that the OP No.3 had paid a total sum of Rs.4,22,818/-  to the OP No.1 against the loan taken by Sh.Ram Gopal. After that the applicant visited the office of OP No.1 and requested to issue the NOC. Initially, the officials of OP No.1 and 2 lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Now the OP No.1 is falsely claiming an amount of about Rs.2.00 lacs illegally and forcibly, whereas the applicant is not liable to pay any loan amount to the  OP No.1 and 2 as loan was secured/insured through the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 has already made the payment of Rs.4,22,818/- .If there is any further outstanding amount, then the same will be indemnified/paid by the OP No.3 being insurer of the loan. Thus, it is alleged that demanding of further amount as loan by the  OP No.1 and 2 is illegally and if any remains to be paid the same would be paid by OP No.3. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and the OPs be directed to issue NOC to the complainant alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 and 2 filed their written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that father of the complainant had availed loan facilities from the OP No.2 for refinance facility for the same Harvester in the  year 2016.The request of the father of the complainant was acceded by the OP No.2 and a sum ofRs.7,39,000/- was refinanced by the OP No.2 vide contract No.LO15400055 dated 23.06.2016 and a total sum of Rs.10,53,827/- was repayable in six half yearly installments  commencing from 10.12.2016 and ending on 10.6.2019.  It is admitted that a term of the loan agreement, the NOC  would be issued to the customer borrower only upon receiving all the dues under the loan account but the complainant  failed to clear all dues of Mr.Ram  Gopal(since deceased). It is mentioned that the complainant’s father died on 29.11.2017 and the same was communicated to the OP No.1 and 2 only on 12.12.2017.The OP no.2 as the beneficiary has immediately raised the insurance claim with the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 had paid only a sum of Rs.4,22,818/- on 12.02.2018. The OP No.2 have communicated the same to the complainant that after appropriating  the insurance amount there is still outstanding a sum of Rs.2,04,707/- under the contract as on 14.5.2018 and have requested the complainant to settle the dues under the contract vide letter dated 14.05.2018 but the complainant had not come forward to settle the dues. The complainant without clearing the dues under the loan agreement has approached this Forum with unclean hands. All other made in the complaint have been denied by OP No.1  and 2 and preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, suppression of true and material facts have been raised and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the OP No.1 evaluated the claim. As per certificate of insurance issued to the deceased member, the cover provided to the member was a single premium reducing cover which implies that it is presumed that the loan shall keep paying his outstanding loan amount on the dues dates and accordingly the outstanding due amount reduces. In the said policy, the cover amount at the  inception  of the policy was Rs.7,39,000/- and the type of cover was reducing cover. Hence, the same is calculated as per the details of interest and Principal breakup stated in the clause No.1.pertaining to benefits terms and conditions of certificate of insurance issued to the member, the claim amount subject to maximum loan outstanding of member as on the date of death would be paid. It is pertinent to note that the details of interest and principal breakup was shared by the policy holder dated 29.10.2018 with answering OP. Hence, the answering OP after evaluating the claim it was found to be genuine and hence settled the claim as per the terms and conditions as stated in the claim as per the terms and conditions as stated in the certificate of insurance by making a payment of Rs.4,22,818/- to the policy holder. Accordingly, the OP no.3 has discharged its duties and the NOC is to be issued by the OP No.1 and 2 and the OP No.3 cannot be said to be deficient in services and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

 

6.                The OP No.1 and 2 have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-7 and closed their evidence.

7.                The OP No.3 in support of its case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed its evidence.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

9.                The learned counsel for the complainant argued that Shri Ram Gopal (since deceased) was owner of Harvester Combine Make John Deere India Pvt. Limited having registration NO. HR-07T-8127 .The said vehicle was financed with the OP no.1 and 2. The above said loan was also duly secured by OP No.3. It is further argued that Ram Gopal has died on 29.11.2017 and the date of death alongwith death certificate was duly communicated to the OPs by the complainant as after the death of Ram Gopal, complainant has become owner of the said  combine. Upon this, the OP No.3 assured to clear all the dues of the OP No.1 as per terms and conditions and OP No.1 also assured to issue No Objections Certificate after receiving the outstanding amount.  It is argued that the OP No.3 had paid a total sum of Rs.4,22,818/-  to the OP No.1 against the loan taken by Sh.Ram Gopal. After that the applicant visited the office of OP No.1 and requested to issue the NOC. Initially, the officials of OP No.1 and 2 lingered the matter on one pretext and ultimately claimed an amount of about Rs.2.00 lacs illegally and forcibly, whereas the applicant is not liable to pay any loan amount to the  OP No.1 and 2 as loan was secured/insured through the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 has already made the payment of Rs.4,22,818/- .If there is any further outstanding amount, then the same will be indemnified/paid by the OP No.3 being insurer of the loan and there is  deficiency in services on the part of OPs.

10.              The learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that  father of the complainant had availed loan facilities from the OP No.2 for refinance facility for the same Harvester in the  year 2016.The request of the father of the complainant was acceded by the OP No.2 and a sum of Rs.7,39,000/- was refinanced by the OP No.2 vide contract No.LO15400055 dated 23.06.2016 and a total sum of Rs.10,53,827/- was repayable in six half yearly installments  commencing from 10.12.2016 and ending on 10.6.2019.  The OP no.2 as the beneficiary has immediately raised the insurance claim with the OP No.3 and the OP No.3 had paid only a sum of Rs.4,22,818/- on 12.02.2018. It is argued that the OP No.2 has communicated the same to the complainant that after appropriating the insurance amount there is still outstanding a sum of Rs.2,04,707/- under the contract as on 14.5.2018 and have requested the complainant to settle the dues under the contract vide letter dated 14.05.2018 but the complainant had not come forward to settle the dues.

11.              The learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that As per certificate of insurance issued to the deceased member, the cover provided to the member was a single premium reducing cover which implies that it is presumed that the loan shall keep paying his outstanding loan amount on the dues dates and accordingly the outstanding due amount reduces. In the said policy, the cover amount at the inception of the policy was Rs.7,39,000/- and the type of cover was reducing cover. Hence, the same is calculated as per the details of interest and Principal breakup stated in the clause No.1.pertaining to benefits terms and conditions of certificate of insurance issued to the member, the claim amount subject to maximum loan outstanding of member as on the date of death would be paid. It is pertinent to note that the details of interest and principal breakup was shared by the policy holder dated 29.10.2018 with answering OP. Hence, the answering OP after evaluating the claim it was found to be genuine and hence settled the claim as per the terms and conditions as stated in the claim as per the terms and conditions as stated in the certificate of insurance by making a payment of Rs.4,22,818/- to the policy holder and there is no deficiency  in services on the part of OP No.3.

12.              After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the material available on the case file, it is established that the complainant’s father was advanced the loan of Rs.7,39,000/-. Last installment was paid on 10.06.2017 amounting to Rs.1,78,210/-.  The insured Ram Gopal died on 29.11.2017 and after the death of insured, the balance principal outstanding as on 10.06.2017 remained Rs.5,36,097/-.  The interest @ 22% per annum from 10.06.2017 i.e. from the date of last installment comes to Rs.58,970/-. Therefore, total outstanding as on 29.11.2017 comes to Rs.5,95,067/- ( i.e. Rs.5,36,097 + Rs.58970/-=Rs.5,95,067).    Out of the total outstanding i.e. Rs.5,95,067/-, OP No.3 has paid the sum of Rs.4,22,818/- to the OP No.1  who has to issue the NOC to the complainant and thus, the remaining amount yet to be paid by the OP No.3  to the OP No.1   comes to Rs. 1,72, 249/- ( i.e. Rs.5,95,067/- minus Rs.4,22,818/- i.e. Rs.1,72,249/-.  Therefore, the net amount to be paid by the  OP No.3  to the   OP No.1  comes to Rs.1,72,249/- and thereafter, OP No.1  shall issue the NOC to the complainant.  Thus, there is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

13.              For the reasons recorded above, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 to make the payment of Rs.1,72,249/- to the OP No.1  and thereafter OP No.1 shall issue the No Objection Certificate in respect of the said vehicle to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay   a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  The OPs are further directed to  make the compliance of this order within a  period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:02.03.2021                                                     (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.