Delhi

North

CC/96/2022

SMT KOMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

UPHAR FINVEST LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:96/2022

 

Smt. Komal

W/o Late Sh. Lokesh Kumar,

House No.121/23, Railway Colony,

Kishan Ganj, Malka Ganj,

Delhi-110007.

 

Also at:

113/6, Railway Colony,

Kishan Ganj, Padam Nagar (North Delih)

Delhi-110007.                                                  …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

Uphar Finvest Limited

Through its Director

402, Sheetla House 73-74,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.                  …                               Opposite Party No.1

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Manager,

902, 905 Hemkunt House,

Rajendra Place,

Delhi-110008.                                                 …                                Opposite Party No.2

 

ORDER

16/04/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

(1)      The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that:-

 

1. the husband of the complainant namely, Sh. Lokesh Kumar purchased e-Rickshaw bearing no. DL-IERA- 9369 from Saera Electric Auto Pvt. Ltd., Kh. No. 118/1/2, PP No. 2, Masudabad, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043 on 19.11.2016 against a sale consideration amount of Rs.106400/-. The said e-Rickshaw was purchased for earning livelihood for himself and his family members.
2. The deceased husband of the complainant had paid the earnest money of Rs.26400/- in cash to Saera Electric Auto Pvt. Ltd. and remaining amount of Rs.80,000/- was financed by the Opposite Party No. 1 vide Loan Agreement No. ER02648 and the vehicle was also got insured with the Opposite Party No.2 vide Policy No. 31230031160100002769 valid from 19.11.2016 till 18.11.2017.
3. the deceased husband of the Complainant, started paying the EMI of Rs.6667/- since 20.12.2016 to the Opposite Party No.1 and paid  8 EMIs out of total 15 EMIs to the Opposite Party No.1 till August, 2017 regularly and punctually but unfortunately the said e-Rickshaw was stolen on 21.08.2017 and a sum of Rs.53,336/-was paid to the opposite party no. 1 till date of theft of the vehicle.
4. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant lodged a theft report online at P.S. e-Police Station Sarai Rohilla, North-District, Delhi vide FIR No. 026713 dated 01.09.2017 and informed the Opposite Party No.1 about the theft of his e-rickshaw. The copy of the FIR was also given to the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 was also informed about the theft of his vehicle.
5. The husband of the Complainant suffered from mentally and physically because the source of income of the husband of the Complainant completely stopped due to which the whole family members of the Complainant suffered great financial crisis and mental stress. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant expired on 17.11.2017 and after his death, the Complainant produced the death certificate of her husband to the opposite parties for taking necessary action. The Complainant also made prayer to the Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant has no liability to the remaining outstanding to the opposite party no.1 as the e-rickshaw was duly insured with the opposite Party No.2 and the said rickshaw was stolen.
6. The concerned police officials issued non-traceable report of the said vehicle. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 is fully liable to pay the remaining financed amount to the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No. 1 did not consider the request of the Complainant and continued to pressurise the Complainant to pay the remaining EMIs. The Complainant also narrated the opposite parties that at the time of theft of the vehicle the said vehicle was duly insured.
7. After the death of husband of the complainant the family of the complainant have faced financial crisis as the deceased husband of the complainant was the only sole earning member of his family. After demise of husband of the complainant, the complainant and her two children Kushal Sharma (age about 15 years) and Tanish Sharma (age about 12 years) are facing acute financial crisis and passing through severe mental agony.

(2)      It has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 is harassing and pressurizing the complainant and her family members for paying the exorbitant amount of Rs.1,23,867/- and threatening the complainant and her family members to face dire consequences in case the amount is not paid. The Complainant and her family members repeatedly stated to the Opposite Party No.1 that the said vehicle was stolen and the Opposite Party No.2 is responsible to pay the financed amount to the Opposite Party No.1 but the Opposite Party No.1 has not considered the same. The Opposite Party No.1 sent a notice dated 19.02.2022 to the complainant and his family members whereby demanding the exorbitant amount from the complainant and her family members.

(3)      It has further been stated that the Opposite Party No.1 wrote a non-repossession letter dated 07.11.2017 to the Opposite Party No.2 against Loan A/c No. ER02648 for Vehicle No. DL-1ERA-9369 (E-Rickshaw) wherein the Opposite Party No.1 mentioned that the vehicle of the deceased Lokesh Kumar was stolen and has not been repossessed. The Opposite Party No.1 made request to Opposite Party No.2 to claim amount by way of cheque in the name of Opposite Party No.1 giving the account details to the Opposite Party No.2. Copy of the letter dated 07.11.2017 has been annexed with the complaint.

(4)      In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Complainant has filed instant complaint requesting for directions to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposite Parties causing mental harassment and agony to the Complainant and further Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation in favour of the Complainant. It is also requested that any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the opposite parties.

(5)      The Complainant has also filed copies of invoice, Transport Department Documents, death certificate of Lokesh Kumar, FIR, order dated 13.10.2017 of Sh. Anuj Agrawal, Loan statement, Insurance Policy, Loan account … dated 07.11.2017, Original letter loan outstanding, Aadhar card of Complainant, Aadhar card of Kushal Sharma and Tanish Sharma alongwith the complaint.

(6)      Accordingly, notices alongwith complete set of complaint, were issued to the OPs to contest the complaint before this commission but the OPs neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OPs chose not to appear despite service, have been proceeded Ex-parte.  However, the AR for OP-1 had appeared on 31.08.2022 & sought the copy of complaint but it was found from the record that the OP-1 was duly served on 12.05.2022 alongwith complaint and vide our order dated 06.07.2022, both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte on account of non-appearance. In view of the fact that OP-1 has already proceeded ex-parte and notice alongwith copy of the complete set of complaint was already supplied to OP-1 in the month of May itself, it was not found justified to give fresh copy of the complaint to OP-1.

(7)      The complainant has filed evidence by way of Affidavit. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences and material available on records. Since the OPs have chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations of deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant. However, the AR appearing on behalf of OP-1, has filed “No Objection Certificate” alongwith duly signed Form 35 stating that the loan agreement with Sh. Lokesh Kumar is successfully closed. The same was handed over to Ld. Advocate for Complainant to complete the formalities of claiming Insurance claim against the stolen e-rickshaw.

(8)      On perusal of the facts of the case, it has been observed that at the time of the theft the vehicle was duly insured with OP-2. The IDV of the vehicle was Rs.1,01,080/- and the vehicle was also hypothecated with the OP-1. Since the vehicle was hypothecated with the OP-1 against loan of  Rs.80,000/- out of which Rs.53,336/- was paid by the deceased husband of the Complainant in eight EMIs till the date of the theft, the OP-1 was supposed to calculate the balance due amount of loan immediately on receipt of information of theft for onward transmission of its insurance claim to the OP-2 with the clarification that the remaining amount of the vehicle should be paid to the LRs of the deceased Sh. Lokesh Kumar but the OP-1 chose to pressurise the Complainant unethically to pay the escalated amount of Rs.1,23,867/- and sent legal notice. However, after filing the instant complaint by the Complainant before this Commission, the OP-1 has issued NOC stating that “the vehicle loan agreement with Sh. Lokesh Kumar (deceased husband of the Complainant) for finance of vehicle No. DL1ERA9369 is successfully closed”. It has also been written in this NOC dated 19.06.2023 that “this NOC has been issued to the OP-2 for releasing the insurance claim to our company Uphar Finvest Limited”. This NOC was handed over the Complainant in original for completion of the formalities for removal of hypothecation and also for claiming the insurance claim against the theft of the vehicle from the OP-2.

(9)      Since the vehicle was stolen on 21.08.2017 an FIR was lodged on 01.09.2017 but the OP-1 has issued NOC on 19.06.2023 during the course of hearing of the complaint in this Commission, we are of the considered view that the OP-1 has been deficient in providing service and the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service on the part of the OP 1  in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. This deficiency of service has also caused harassment, mental agony and pain to the complainant. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP 1 (Uphar Finvest Limited) to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order to the complainant as compensation for the mental  pain, agony and harassment caused.

(10)    The OP-2 is also directed to pay Rs.1,01,080/- (full amount of  IDV of the stolen vehicle) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Though the OP-1 has mentioned in the NOC dated 19.06.2023 that the insurance claim be released to OP-1, we are of the considered opinion that upon successfully closure of loan agreement, this clause has become redundant and the OP-1 is not entitled to receive any amount against the stolen vehicle.

(11)    It is clarified that the aforesaid amount shall be paid within 30 days as directed above at para 9 and 10 failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the awarded amount with interest @9% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

(12)    Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                                      Member                                                                                  President         

                                                 DCDRC-1 (North)                                                             DCDRC-1 (North)