Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/210/2015

Basagond G B Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Tata Motors Finance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R H Gadag And G V Joshi

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

              

ADDITIONAL  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELAGAVI

C.C.No.210/2015

Date of filing 17/04/2015

                                                         Date of disposal: 07/06/2017

P R E S E N T :-

 

	(1)	Shri. A.G.Maldar, B.Com,LL.B. (Spl.) President.
	(2)	Smt.J.S. Kajagar, B.Sc. LLB. (Spl.)  Lady Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT   -

Shri. Basagond G.B. Patil, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.13/D, A/p: Maigur, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist. Bagalkot.                         (Rep. by Shri. R.H.Gadag, Adv.)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES  -

1.           2.       3.

The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd., Lodha -1, Think Tecno Campus Building A, 2nd Floor, Procran Road-2, Thane – 400607.                 (Rep. by Shri.S.M.Kadolkar, Adv.)     The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd., Khanapur Road, Belagavi.   The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Sunray Square, Shop No.F2, F3, F6 and F7, No.219, Khanapur Road, Tilakwadi, Belgaum.                             (Op.No.2 & 3 Ex-parte)

JUDGEMENT

 

By  Sri.A.G. Maldar, President.

 

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “Ops”) directed to pay the vehicle damages and consequential loss due to deficiency of service of Rs.3,82,133/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. on 02.09.2013 till realization and any other reliefs as deemed fit.

 

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

 

          It is case of the complainant that, on dtd: 21.11.2011 the complainant has purchased Sumo Gold CX bearing Reg.No.
KA-48/4455, Yellow Board, Commercial Passenger Vehicle by taking Hypothecation Loan from Op.No.1 through OP.No.2 of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the loan agreement and also fixed the 48 equal monthly installment of Rs.13,200/- and further, the OP.No.1 & 2 have responsibility to pay the insurance premium for the said Hypothecated vehicle for covering the risk of third party as well as own damage and further contended that, after getting the policy the OP.No.2 has sent a policy of insurance which is issued by the Op.No.3 in respect of said vehicle covering the risk for the period from 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2013, under the policy No.552700 31126100029088, issued on 18.10.2012 as a private car and once-again issued another policy for covering the same period for the said vehicle, more particularly same engine number and chassis number under the policy No.55270031126300084131, date of issue is on 24.03.2014, further the Op.No.2 has forwarded the correct policy to the complainant.

 

          It is further case of the complainant that, on dtd: 02.09.2013 about 6-30 hours on Mudhol – Lokapur Road near Timmapur Village unfortunately the said vehicle was met with an accident and damaged, after the accident, the complainant has called to toll free number to the OP/Insurance Company and intimated the incident and as per their say, the complainant has left the said vehicle for repair in the Authorized Service Centre at Mudhol and repaired and as per bill given by the said service center of Rs.52,133/- the complainant had issued the letter on dtd: 27.09.2013 to the office of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijapur alongwith repair bill and other required papers and claiming the damage amount and further the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijapur has issued reply letter on dtd: 27.01.2014 to the complainant and stating that, the premium amount is paid under the private vehicle and not paid the commercial vehicle to the said vehicle, due to this, the complainant has suffered mental agony and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1 & 2 and further it is bounden duty of the OP.No.1 & 2 ought to have pay the proper insurance premium to the said Hypothecated vehicle.

          It is further contended that, the complainant has suffered loss due to stranding the vehicle without any rent or income, till issuing the second policy, as per the request of complainant i.e. on 10.05.2014 and waited about 6 months 20 days, after the repair of vehicle till the date of receipt of the correct policy from Op.No.1 & 2 and further the complainant has monthly earning of the said vehicle is Rs.30,000/- per month and loss due to stranding vehicle in total Rs.2,00,000/-. It is happened entirely due to the deficiency of service on the part of the Op.No.1 & 2.

 

Finally the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP.No.1 & 2 on dtd: 22.05.2014, the notice was duly served to the OPs and OP.No.1 has given evasive reply to the complainant on dtd: 02.06.2014 and as per the reply given by the Op.No.1 not come forward to settle the claim till today, even after oral request also, this attitude of the OPs, the complainant has suffered heavy loss and sustained mental agony. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.

           

3.      After issue of notice to the OPs, Shri. S.M. Kadolkar, Advocate has appeared for Op.No.1 and he has neither filed any written version nor put-forth any affidavit evidence in the above said complaint and OP.No.2 & 3 have neither appeared nor filed any version. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum considered the OP.No.2 & 3 are placed Ex-parte.  

 

 

 4.     The Adv. for complainant has filed his affidavit and produced  20 documents, for sake of our conveniences, we have marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20. On the other hand, the OP.No.1 has not produced any affidavits or documents, even written version. The Adv. for complainant has argued the matter. Heard the argument of complainant.

 

  5.       Now, the following points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are;

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in repudiation of claim of the Complainant?

 

2. What Order?

 

6.     Our findings to the above points are as under:

 

1. In the affirmative.
2. As per the final order for the following:

 

 

                                R E A S O N S

 

 

7.     POINT.NO:1:- We have perused the pleadings of the complainant and evidence and documents placed on record and the arguments advanced by complainant, it is evident that,
the said vehicle i.e. Sumo Gold CX bearing Reg.No.KA-48/4455, Yellow Board, Passenger Vehicle by taking Hypothecation Loan from Op.No.1 through OP.No.2 for Rs.4,00,000/-. It is specific case of the complainant that, as per the loan agreement that,
the OP.No.1 & 2 have responsibility to pay the insurance premium for the said Hypothecated vehicle for covering the risk of third party as well as own damage and further contended that,
after getting the policy the OP.No.2 has sent insurance policy which is issued by the Op.No.3 in respect of said vehicle covering the risk of vehicle and the policy is enforce at the time of accident, the policy period from 21.11.2012 to 20.11.2013, under the policy
No.55270031126100029088, as package policy and the said package policy towards private car. The case of the complainant that, the complainant has paid a regular installment to the Tata Finance from 02.01.2012 to 02.12.2015 and the loan amount has been paid.

 

          In order to prove the said contention, the complainant has furnish the documents i.e. R.C. book, Permit, copy of temporary Registration, Loan Schedule letter, Account Statement, Xerox copy of first policy issued to the complainant, Certificate of insurances cum policy schedules with envelop, copy of the letter issued by the complainant dtd: 14.02.2014 alongwith postal receipts and acknowledgement, application for damage claim, reply given letters by Op.No.3 on dtd: 30.03.2014, 17.02.2014 and 27.01.2014, tax invoice, copy of legal notice with A.D. card and reply given by Op.No.1 which are marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20 and supporting affidavit evidence, it is clearly stated that, the complainant has taken loan from the Op.No.1 & 2 and paid the principle as well as interest towards the loan amount and also the OP.No.2 collected an amount on monthly towards insurance policy regarding vehicle insurance policy and same has remitted to Op.No.3, it is clearly revels that, the Op.No1 & 2 remit the insurance amount to the OP.No.3 as pakage (private car) instead of Passenger carrying package policy. The complainant intimated to the Op.No.3 to indemnify the insurer, but the Op.No.3 has issued letter dtd: 27.01.2014 and reminder issued on 17.02.2014 and finally reminder II issued on dtd: 30.03.2014 for explanation regarding vehicle whether the said vehicle is commercial vehicle or private vehicle, but Op.No.3 neither  indemnify nor repudiated the claim, these acts of the OP.No.3 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.No.3 and mere asking explanation is not sufficient to discharge the duty of Op.No.3 as per IRDA rules, the insurer ought to have appoint a surveyor to assess the loss caused to the vehicle and same has tobe got the report. But, in the instant case, the OP.No.3 neither appointed the surveyor nor settle the claim of the complainant, even neither repudiated the claim by giving detailed reason for the same. In our consider view that, the complainant has proved the contention as alleged in the complaint by producing document i.e. letter which has issued by the OP.No.3.

 

          However, in the instant case, the Op.No.1 & 2 has not complied as per agreement executed by the complainant and Op.No.1 & 2 at the time of sanctioning the loan to the complainant for purchase of said vehicle and even the OP.No.1 & 2 has not made any effort to convenience to this forum by filing the written version that, they are not liable to pay the same as alleged by the complainant and moreover the OP.No.1 has appeared, but did not context the case. So under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Op.No.1 & 2 also for not perform as per vehicle registration and not taking proper insurance regarding insurance policy in respect of commercial vehicle or private car. So, in our consider view, not taking proper care regarding insurance towards the said vehicle is amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Op.No.1 & 2.

 

           It is important to note that, all the allegation made by the complainant against the Op.No.1, 2 and 3 have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted, so the allegation of the complainant proved by producing material document and cogent supporting affidavit evidence are acceptable and believable. So, on our firm consider opinion that, the complainant has proved the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Ops.  Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant deserve tobe allowed.

 

Now coming to the quantum of the claim amount, the complainant has claimed exaggerated compensation of Rs.3,82,132/-, without any base or supporting document and also not proved the same by producing cogent material documents to believe, but merely the complainant has produced only one tax invoice towards repair of Rs.52,133/- and the same has been paid by the complainant on dtd: 19.09.2013, the said document produced before this Forum, which is marked as Ex.P-17.  

 

Under such circumstances, it is just and proper to award a consolidated sum of Rs.52,133/- towards damage to the said vehicle as per Basava Motors receipts. The Op.No.1 & 2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs.26,066.50/- ( i.e. 50% of Rs.52,133/- ) and Op.No.3 is also liable to pay an amount of  Rs.26,066.50/- ( i.e. 50% of Rs.52,133/- )  to the complainant, because already we have discussed above regarding contributory negligency and deficiency in service, and Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses, it would be just and proper and accordingly Point No.1 is partly affirmative, we proceed to pass the following; 

         

O R D E R

 

For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

 

          The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,133/- towards damage to the said vehicle i.e. the Op.No.1 & 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.26,066.50/- ( i.e. 50% of Rs.52,133/- ) and also the Op.No.3 shall pay a remaining an amount of  Rs.26,066.50/- ( i.e. 50% of Rs.52,133/- )  to the complainant.  

 

The OPs jointly and severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

 

The OPs are granted 10 weeks time for compliance of this order, failing to which the OPs are liable to pay together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.  

 

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 07^th day of June -2017).

 

Sri. A.G.Maldar,     President.

Smt. J.S. Kajagar,    Lady Member.