Delhi

North East

CC/264/2015

Tahira Khatun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ujjiwan Financial Serivces Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 264/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt Tahira Khatun W/o Shri Tanvir R/o 125, Ali Prem Garden Passonda Ghaziabad, U.P.	Complainant
	Versus
1.	M/s Ujjiwan Financial Services Pvt Ltd. 2203, Yamuan Vihar, Delhi -110053	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

28.07.2015 09.03.2018 26.03.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint, the case of the complainant is that she had purchased a buffalo for earning livelihood for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 10.07.2014 from one Shri Yamin s/o Nasir Ahmad for which  she had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the OP vide loan account/ ID series No. 22037530000012 on 23.07.2014 and an agreement was executed between the parties. That loan was repayable by the complainant to OP in 24 equal installments of Rs. 3232/- per month payable on 15^th Calendar day of each month and maturity date of loan was 15.08.2016. Further the complainant submitted that the she had taken an insurance of the said buffalo with TATA AIG (having tie-up with OP) for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- w.e.f. 15.07.2014 to 15.07.2016 against payment of premium of Rs. 960/-. The complainant had signed the loan document No. IP2271000241. The said buffalo died on 09.07.2015 and Society of Dead Animals, Ghaziabad issued a certificate to this effect on 10.07.2014 and the complainant vide letter dated 13.07.2015 approached the OP for settlement of her loan and her inability to pay EMI’s due to financial hardship owing to death of the buffalo which was source of her livelihood but all in vain. It has been further submitted by the complainant that the OP miserably failed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant despite documentary proof that the buffalo had died on 09.07.2015 i.e. within insurance period and as such the OP is guilty of deficient service to the complainant. Therefore, vide present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant towards the insured amount of the said buffalo alongwith Rs. 30,000/- for suffering of mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. In support of above contentions, the complainant has submitted a copy of the following documents:

1. Registration Certificate dated 10.07.2014 showing that buffalo was purchased for Rs. 80,000/-
2. Loan Card – cum – receipt dated 23.07.2014 showing the amount of loan Rs. 60,000/- repayable in 24 monthly installments plus interest out of which ten installments upto 15^th June 2015 as paid and also insurance fee charged being Rs. 960/- in two installments of Rs. 480/- each in name of complainant and her husband Tanvir Manga Khan (loan acknowledgement affidavit No. 2271000241 dated 23.07.2014). It also showed that all insurance policy related matters are subject to terms and conditions of the issuing / underwriting insurance company and cattle death has to be registered on TATA AIG toll free number (1800 209 3536/ 1800 266 7780) within 24 hours of death; failing which claims will not be entertained.
3. Post dated cheques pouch dated 23.07.2014 showing that Loan ID Serial No. 220375300000012-1 for Rs. 60,000/- was for livestock loan monthly 1L- 2 years was taken for repayment in 24 installments by the complainant and her husband by cheque no. 46811 and cheque no. 46812 of Central Bank of India, Sahibabad Branch were mentioned in the pouch.
4. The promissory note signed by the complainant ID No. 2271000241 showed that loan of s. 60,000/- was taken and in case of death of the cattle the borrower is bound to repay the installments on the schedule time.
5. A copy of individual loan demand promissory note dated 23.07.014 has been submitted which is duly signed by the complainant on revenue stamp that she is promising to pay OP a sum of Rs. 60,000/- with interest thereon at 26% p.a. towards livestock loan availed by her.
6. A copy of certificate dated 09.07.2015 issued by Society of Dead Animals Ghaziabad showing that the buffalo had died on 09.07.2015.
7. Copy of letter from complainant to OP sent by Speed Post/ Registered Post vide postal receipt dated 13.07.2015 informing that the buffalo has died on 09.07.2015 and complainant will not be able to refund the loan installments.
8. A copy of letter from complainant to Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Shalimar Garden Extension-2, Shahibabad requesting him to close the A/c No. 3354818080 and returning the cheque no. 046814 to 046830.
9. A copy of postal receipts in support of complainant’s contention that she had informed OP after the death of buffalo.
10. Photographs of buffalo/in dead position.

3. The above complaint was admitted on 13.11.2015 and notice to OP was issued and served on 28.11.2015 for appearance on 15.12.2015. However, non on behalf of OP appeared on that date and as such last opportunity was provided to OP for filing of written statement on 11.02.2016. None on behalf of OP appeared on that date and as such OP was proceeded against ex parte ex parte. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence on 31.03.2016 and written arguments on 28.11.2016. Oral arguments of complainant were heard on 09.03.2018 and pleadings were completed. The complainant reiterated the points mentioned in his complaint in the ex parte evidence as well as in written arguments with the same prayer.
4. We have gone through the complaint and perused the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant. As the OP was proceeded ex parte, there was no rebuttal of the evidence and contentions submitted by the complainant. Our observations are as under: -

1. The loan of Rs. 60,000/- from OP was taken by complainant on 23.07.2014 for purchase of buffalo but the buffalo was purchased for Rs. 80,000/- on 10.07.2014 i.e. 13 days prior to taking loan for that purpose.
2. The loan of Rs. 60,000/- taken by complainant from OP was to be repaid to OP in 24 installments but only 10 installments were repaid admittedly by the complainant and 14 installments were outstanding after June 2015 despite the promissory note given by the complainant stating that in case of death of the cattle, the borrower was bound to pay the installments on the scheduled time.
3. It was clearly mentioned in the loan acknowledgement affidavit No. 2271000241 dated 23.07.2014 that animal insurance is not connected with the loan and in the event of unexpected / untimely death of the cattle the complainant shall still be liable to pay timely installments of loan taken against its purchase.  Further the loan card came receipt on its foot note clearly mentioned that  all insurance policy related matter are subject to terms and conditions of the issuing / under writing insurance company and cattle death has to be registered on TATA-AIG toll free no. 18002093536 or 18002667780 within 24 hours of death, failing  which claim will not be. The complainant has failed to submit any evidence to show that the above condition was complied with and she has registered the death of buffalo with TATA AIG Toll free no. as mentioned in the Loan Card-cum-Receipt within 24 hours of death of buffalo.
4. TATA-AIG-Insurance Co. was not made a party in this complaint by the complainant to press the claim for insurance amount. Only the finance company was made a party, which did not appear and as such was proceeded ex parte and against whom the insurance claim could not have been sought since the relationship between the complainant and OP was that of borrower and lender.
5. The complainant expressed her inability to repay the remaining installments of the loan taken by her to the OP through vide letter dated 13.07.2015 and did not repay the entire amount of loan despite promissory note executed by her on 23.07.2014 in favour of OP to repay the same, 14 EMI’s of which are outstanding as per complainant’s own admission. Moreover, the complainant also closed her Bank A/c with Central Bank of India alongwith returning unused cheques.

5. Keeping in view all the above factors, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to discharge her contractual / monetary obligation qua the OP and cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same qua the present complaint in trying to circumvent and wriggle out of the payment of balance of 14 EMI’s to the OP. The complainant has also failed to prove/ substantiate the deficiency in service on the part of the OP as there is no specific or substantive proof or documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant to prove any deficient service or any questionable act on the part of OP qua the complainant. We do not find any merit in the frivolous, unsubstantiated and baseless complaint and as such the same is dismissed with no cost to the complainant.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on  26.03.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member