Haryana

Karnal

60/2011

Naresh Kumar Jindal S/o Gopi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Kamra

11 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.60 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt.: 27.01.2011

                                                               Date of decision: 11.05.2016

 

Naresh Kumar Jindal son of Shri Gopi Ram, resident of House no.2051, Old Market, Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra.

.                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., SCO 223, Sector-12, First Floor City Centre, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 2^nd floor, C-33, Ramakrishna Metal Works, opp. ITI, near Service Centre, Road no.28, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-         Sh.R.K. Kamra Advocate for the complainant.

                     Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                    Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he got financed his truck bearing registration no.HR-37B-5397 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- vide contract no.5000013754 dated 31.10.2006. The loan was to be repaid in installments. At the time of getting finance, the truck was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was valid from 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007.  The opposite parties debited a sum of Rs.9000/- as insurance premium for the next year i.e. for the period of 25.9.2007 to 24.09.2008 and Rs.7000/- as insurance premium for the next second year i.e. for the period of 25.9.2008 to 24.09.2009. On 24.09.2007, the initial policy period expired, therefore, asked the opposite parties to get the vehicle insured for further period as they had already received a sum of Rs.9000/- from him for that purpose, but inspite of his repeated requests they did not get insured the truck. Ultimately, he got insured his truck from his own expenses with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. which was valid from 18.10.2007 to 17.10.2008. Copy of the said policy was also given to opposite party no.1 and it was requested not to get the truck insured and credit the amount of Rs.9000/- to his account, but to his utter surprise the opposite party no.1 also got insured the truck from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company for the period of 30.10.2007 to 29.10.2008 and also debited Rs.9,880.64Paise in his account, as the remaining balance of the premium and other expenses. Thereafter, he visited the office of opposite parties number of times and requested them to credit the amount of Rs.9000/-+ Rs.9,880.64 paise in his account, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It has also been alleged that on 17.09.2009 the opposite parties sent a letter asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,948.64. The said demand was also illegal, which also amounted to deficiency in service.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 9.5.2011, therefore, exparte proceeding were initiated against it.

3.                Opposite party no.2 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complainant was not a consumer as per definition under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the loan was obtained by him for commercial purpose and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

                    On merits, it has been denied that the complainant requested not to get the vehicle insured and gave a copy of the insurance policy. It has been submitted that the opposite parties got insured the vehicle at right time, but the complainant arbitrarily and illogically got the vehicle insured. Moreover, the complainant never informed in that regard and breached the terms and conditions of the agreement. There was no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties. It has also been alleged that the complainant was not making the payment of the installments in time and an amount of Rs.39,271.11 was outstanding against the complainant on 29.04.2011. Legal notice was also sent to him, but the same also fell on deaf ears.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C9 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand,  in evidence of opposite party no.2, affidavit of Mahipal Singh Legal Manager Ex.O1 has been tendered.

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

7.                The complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.3,80,000/- from opposite parties for purchasing the truck and loan agreement dated 31.10.2006 was executed between the parties. Document Ex.C4 shows that the opposite parties had debited an amount of Rs.16,000/- in the account of the complainant for insurance of the vehicle i.e. Rs.9000/- for second policy year and Rs.7000/- for third policy year.  The copy of insurance policy is Ex.C3 indicates that initially the truck was insured for the period of 25.09.2006 to 24.09.2007.  The complainant has alleged that he asked the opposite parties to get the vehicle insured, but they did not get the same insured, therefore, he himself got insured the truck from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company for the period of 18.10.2007 to 17.10.2008 and gave intimation to opposite party no.1, but despite that opposite party no.1 got insured the truck from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period of 30.10.2007 to 29.10.2008 and debited an amount of Rs.9,880.64 in his account.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 laid stress on the contention that the alleged cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2007 when the opposite parties got insured the vehicle for the period of 30.10.2007 to 29.10.2008 and debited an amount of Rs.9,880.64 in his account, whereas the complaint was filed on 27.01.2011, therefore, the complaint is not within limitation.

9.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant came to know about debiting the amount of Rs.9,880.64 in his account when he received letter dated 17.09.2009, vide which the opposite parties raised the demand of Rs.13,948.64, therefore, the complaint is well within limitation.

10.              The complainant has produced the copy of statement of accounts Ex.C8, wherein an amount of Rs.6,943/- has been shown for insurance provision on 20.9.2007. The total amount including service, bank charges, retainer charges and insurance provision was shown as Rs.9,880.64. The copy of the letter dated 17.9.2009 Ex.C9 indicates that the opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.13,948.64 from the complainant as the said amount was due against him. Neither it has been specifically pleaded by the complainant nor there is any evidence on record, which may show that the said demand was in respect of the amount of insurance for getting the vehicle insured by the opposite parties for the period of 30.10.2007 to 29.10.2008. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted and infact the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 30.10.2007 when the opposite parties got insured his vehicle for the period of 30.10.2007 to 29.10.2008. The present complaint was filed on 27.01.2011. As per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the complaint is not within limitation. No explanation what to talk of sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within a prescribed period of limitation has been furnished by the complainant.

11.              In view of the finding that the complaint is not within limitation, the complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 11.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member