Haryana

Ambala

CC/265/2018

Rajat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :  265 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution           :   20.08.2018

                                                          Date of decision     :   17.08.2021.

 

Rajat son of Shri Paramjeet Singh, R/o H. No.273, Adhoya Hinduwan Tehsil Barara, District Ambala-133205 (Haryana)

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Tata Motors Finance Limited, 1^st Floor, 4307/11 to 24, Shanti Complex,    Jagadhri Road, Opp. Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt-135001, Through its          Branch Manager/Mr. Amit.

2.       Tata Motors Finance Limited, 2^nd Floor, A wing, I Think Techno campus, Off Pokhran Road No.2, Thane (West), Maharashra 400601, Through its    Managing Director.

3.       Tata Motors Finance Limited c/o Tata Motors, Railway Road, Ambala        Cantt through its Manager.

4.       Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Peninusla Business Park,   Tower A 15^th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013, Through     its Managing Director.

5.       Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 3^rd Floor, Shanti       Complex, Opposite Civil Hospital, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt,       Ambala, Haryana 133001 Through its Manager.

6.       Tata Motors Railway Road, Ambala Cantt, through its Manager.

 

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Nikhilesh Bhagi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sanjeev Vashisht, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.4 and 5.

OP No.6 already exparte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. Issue the No Objection Certificate after settlement of Insurance claim.
2. Reverse entry of interest upon the loan amount illegally charged by the OPs No.1 to 3 since date of accident till settlement of the claim.
3. Return of original two blank security cheques bearing No.004621 & 004622 drawn at UCO Bank, SAHA Branch, Distt. Ambala of account No.24930110032756.
4. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
5. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is law abiding citizen and in order to earn his livelihood he was willing to purchase TATA MAGIC DISEL 7-Seater. OP No.6 deals in sale and Service of TATA Auto Products including Model “TATA MAGIC DISEL 7-Seater” and complainant in order to earn money for his livelihood, approached the branch office of TATA Motors, Ambala Cantt. There officials of OPs No.1 to 3 approached him for providing loan services and told that the loan will be sanctioned on floating rate of interest and interest rates will be reduced from time to time as per norms of RBI. As allured by the officials of OPs No.1 to 3, he applied for loan and the said officials took his signature on blank paper, stamp papers, loan form and blank cheques etc. At the time of sanction of the loan, officials of TATA MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED took two blank cheques bearing No.004621 & 004622 drawn at UCO Bank, Saha Branch, Distt. Ambala  from the complainant, as security cheque. At the time of receiving the said cheques it was assured that these cheques are security cheques and will not be presented for encashment or will not be misuse by the company. After completion of formalities, a loan of Rs.3,04,500/- was disbursed, payable in monthly instalment of Rs.9507/-. After disbursement of loan from OPs no.1 to 3, complainant purchased vehicle No.HR37D7725, Make 2014, Engine NO.27SIDI06LVYSB7435, Chassis No.MAT445501EVN49991 from the OP No.6. At the time of purchase of aforesaid vehicle, the officials of OPs No.4 & 5, who were present in the showroom of OP No.6, approached and instigated the complainant to get insurance of his vehicle from TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited i.e. OPs No.4 & 5. The said officials told him that they will issue a cashless policy and he was not required to pay any amount for the report of the vehicle. Accordingly, complainant got insured his vehicle from OPs No.4 & 5. Unfortunately, on 15.06.2017, the above said vehicle met with an accident and it was a total loss. He immediately informed the OPs about the accident and damage of vehicle. Shri Amit Manager/Incharge of OPs No.1 to 3, came to the residence of the complainant and told him that he need not to worry, as the vehicle is fully insured and he had to pay only two instalments, for clearance of his loan amount and remaining installments will be paid by the insurance company. The official of OPs No.4 and 5, who accompanied Mr. Amit, took photographs of the damaged vehicle and obtained the signature of the complainant, for processing of claim. It was also told that it was a total loss, so insurance company shall repay the all loan amount to the TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED and the complainant had to pay only two instalments and assured the complainant that they will take the custody of vehicle. After settlement of insurance claim and no dues certificate will be sent to him by the TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED. However, the OPs No.4 & 5 neither settled his claim, nor OPs No.1 to 3 provided him the ‘No Dues Certificates’. The said act of the OPs No.1 to 5 tantamount to deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that complainant obtained the loan facility of Rs. 3,04,500/- from the answering OPs by financing his vehicle “Tata Magic Diesel 7 Seater”. The total contract value was of Rs. 5,60,913/- including the interest of Rs. 1,01,500/- and insurance provision of Rs. 74,000/-.The said loan amount was repayable in 59 equal EMI of Rs. 9507/- per month. The complainant entered into an agreement on 27.03.2015, with the answering OPs, for grant of financial assistance and hypothecated his vehicle in lieu of the amount received under the loan agreement. The loan agreement was executed by the complainant by reading and understanding the contents thereof to be correct. Complainant is bound to make the payment of instalments regularly as per the agreement. It is stated that the complainant never gave any intimation regarding the alleged loss caused to the vehicle. All the contents regarding the insurance claim are false and concocted one. As per the record, an amount of Rs. 3,06,112/- is still due, against the complainant as on 18.09.2018, out of the total contract value. The insurance claim if any, has to be settled by the Ops No. 4&5. It is stated that in case any amount was ordered to be paid by the OPs No. 4&5 to the complainant, in that eventually the said amount is payable to the OPs being the financer of the vehicle.  The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs No. 4&5 appeared and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant himself is responsible for the fate of his claim because he never presented/produced his vehicle bearing registration No. HR37D-7725 for survey and assessment of loss, inspite of repeated requests and reminders. He neither submitted the estimate of loss nor disclosed the name of workshop or place, where he parked his vehicle for repairs. In the absence of survey and assessment of loss, the claim could not be settled, due to lapse on the part of complainant. Lastly, he was informed vide letter dated 04.08.2017, to produce his vehicle for survey but of no avail and accordingly his claim was held as no claim since ‘no claim’, as the claim file cannot be left open for a long time that too particularly when there is no response from the insured. It is further stated that OPs no.4 and 5 have been dragged in the present litigation without any cause or reasons.  Whereas, from the contents of present complaint it is revealed that the complainant has a dispute with the OPs No. 1 to 3. In order to settle the claim, survey of the damage vehicle has to be done by a surveyor as per IRDA guidelines.  Since, complainant did not present his vehicle for survey inspite of repeated requests and reminders thus, his claim could not be processed. Keeping in view all the legal preposition, facts and conduct of the complainant, as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim has been closed as ‘no claim’. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the answering OPs, without cause of action or any grievances but with some ulterior motive only to escape from his loan liability.  Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary cost.

4.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.6 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.10.2018.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CX along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-20 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Sanjib Kumar Das Authorized Signatory of Tata Motors Finance Limited, SCO 11, 1^st Floor, Sector-26, Chandigarh, as Annexure OP1/A along with documents Annexure OP1/1 and OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the OPs No.4 & 5 tendered affidavit of Shri Sanjay Bhagat, Vice President and authorized signatory, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office, Noida as Annexure OP4/A along with document Annexure OP4/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.4 & 5.

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

7.                Annexure C-5, is the insurance policy document vide which the vehicle in question was insured with the OPs No.4 and 5 for the period from 09.03.2017 to 08.03.2018. From the FIR dated 15.06.2017, Annexure C-1, it is evident that the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.2017. Learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that complainant immediately, informed the OPs regarding the accident. The official of the OPs No.1 to 3 alongwith the official of OPs No.4 and 5 visited his residence. The official of the OPs No.4 & 5 had taken the photographs of the damaged vehicle and also obtained his signatures for processing the claim. The said official told him that it is a total loss and the insurance company will repay the loan/claim amount to the finance company i.e. OP No.1 to 3.  The official of the OPs No.1 to 3 told him that he has to pay two installments in addition to the claim amount paid by the insurance company and thereafter the finance company will take over the custody of the vehicle and will issue the ‘No Dues Certificate’ in his favour, but nothing was done by the OPs.

8.                On the contrary the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has contended that ‘No Dues Certificate’ could not be issued in favour of the complainant as he failed to repay the loan amount.  Since, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3.  Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs No.1 to 3 is liable to be dismissed.

9.                The learned counsel for the OPs No.4 to 5 has pleaded that the complainant himself is responsible for non settlement of the claim because he never produced his vehicle for survey and assessment of the loss inspite of repeats requests and reminders. He neither submitted the estimate of loss nor disclosed the name of the workshop or place, where the vehicle in question was parked for repairs. There is specific procedure to deal with any claim and it cannot be settled without the survey and assessment of the loss by the IRDA approved surveyor. Due to lapse on the part of complainant, his claim was held as ‘No Claim’, as the claim file cannot be kept open for a long time that too particularly when there is no response from the insured. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.4 and 5 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                   So far as the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs No.1 to 3 is concerned. It may be stated here that ‘No Due Certificate’ cannot be issued unless the complainant repay the entire loan amount. It is not the case of the complainant that he had paid the entire loan amount to the OPs No.1 to 3, therefore, the complainant has no occasion to file a complaint against the OPs No.1 to 3, as such, the present complaint filed by the complainant against the said OPs is liable to be dismissed.

                   With regard to the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops No.4 and 5, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that he has tendered the invoices/bills dated 17.07.2017, Annexure C-16 to C-20, issued by Shiv Motor Garage regarding the estimate of the repair of the vehicle in question alongwith other documents in evidence on behalf of the complainant and also provided the copy of the said documents to the learned counsel for the OPs. Since, the estimate of the repair of the vehicle has already been provided to the OPs No.4 and 5 during the pendency of this complaint as such, they need to be given directions to settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the estimate given by Shiv Motors Garage. At the same time, complainant is also need to be directed to get the vehicle inspected by the insurance company, if required.

                   So far as the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.6 is concerned. It may be stated here that the complainant has contended that he purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No.6. No relief has been sought against it, by the complainant. It is just a performa party, therefore, complaint filed against it is also liable to be dismissed.

                    In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 to 3 & 6 and dispose of the same against the OPs No.4 & 5 with the following directions:-

                    Complainant shall provide the location of the vehicle where the same is parked, to get the same inspected from the insurance company. The insurance company shall settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of the estimate provided by the service centre/repairer, within the period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order.  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.

Announced on: 17.08.2021.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)         (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President

                                                                                            DCDRC, Ambala