Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Deepa Sharma,Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Manager, Shriram Transport
Finance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
M.A Jose —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1866 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 07/11/2018 in Appeal No. 515/2014 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 22.10.2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shailesh Madiyal and Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
National Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess evidences and reach to its own conclusion on facts when there is a concurrent finding of fact by Forum below.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revision – Scope and ambit – There is no evidence to show that opposite parties had given insurance policy or copy of insurance policy of vehicle to complainant – Due to lack of insurance policy, complainant could not make any claim before insurance company for damages caused to vehicle in accident – District forum directed opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs 25,000/- to complainant for denial of insurance claim of vehicle while it was damaged due to accident – Considering facts and circumstances district forum directed opposite parties to release vehicle to complainant after settling vehicle loan of complainant – Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of Act is limited – This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess evidences and reach to its own conclusion on facts when there is a concurrent finding of fact by Forum below – Both Fora below had reached to concurrent finding that claim had been duly filed by Complainant after accident and no action had been taken by Petitioners on his claim – Vehicle was sold during pendency of Appeal before State Commission – Since vehicle cannot be released to Complainant, Petitioners directed to give new similar vehicle to Complainant within four weeks. (Paras 7, 9, 11 and 12)
ORDER (ORAL)
Arguments on IA 14152 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay as well as on the Revision Petition are heard.
The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) is filed against the order dated 07.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.515/2014 filed against the order 30.04.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.77/2011 of Respondent (hereinafter called as “the Complainant”).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a self-employed driver who drives lorry bearing registration no.KL 07 J 4464. He had hypothecated the said vehicle with the Petitioners against the loan of Rs.1,50,000/-. A repayment chart was issued to him and he had to repay the entire loan amount in 36 monthly instalments commenting from 10.09.2008. He had paid 17 instalments from 20.09.2008 to 14.02.2011 totalling to Rs.1,08,979/-. The Complainant informed the Petitioners that the entire unpaid loan amount shall be cleared by him by April 2011. The default had occurred according to him due to the accident occurred when he was unloading and electrocuted and received head injuries and remained hospitalized in Tata General Hospital at Munnar in the month of September. Thereafter, his vehicle also met with an accident near Karadippara on 08.10.2008 for which a general diary entry was registered in the Police Station. He filed the insurance claim. His contention was that his claim was rejected since the insurance certificate or its copy was not issued to him by the Petitioners. He was never informed as to when the insurance amount was debited from the hypothecated loan amount.
He got the vehicle released from the authorities on the intervention of the High Court of Kerala and that so after a long legal battle. According to him, there was some default in making the payment of the instalments. He was informed that the insurance premiums for three years were remitted after debiting the same from his loan account. He was not provided copy of any insurance policy. For testing the vehicle, therefore, he had to avail a third party insurance from New India Assurance Company Limited on payment of Rs.6,883/-. According to him, his vehicle was illegally and forcibly seized by the Petitioners on 26.02.2011 for the default in repayment of his loan amount. Despite his five visits to the office of the Petitioners, he was not given the details of his loan amount. Finally, he was informed that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is due. He contends that since the Opposite Party did not issue the insurance certificate due to which his claim for the accident was not settled by them, it amounted to deficiency in service. He filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
3. The defence taken by both the Opposite Parties to the Complaint was that since the Complainant had committed breach of terms and conditions of the loan agreement, as there was default in payment of instalments, he was not entitled to any relief.
He paid only Rs.25,376/- as on 09.01.2012 and as per the statement of account an amount of Rs.1,04,979/- was collected which included service charge of Rs.2500/-. That they also took the insurance for the vehicle by paying an amount of Rs.30,089/- against which only a sum of Rs.29,663/- was remitted by the Complainant and so the balance amount of Rs.426/- is also pending against him. A total sum of Rs.3,05,245/- was payable by the Complainant as on 09.01.2012. Premiums for the insurance for the years 2008 to 2010 were paid by the Opposite Parties. It is also denied that the vehicle was ever forcibly seized by the Petitioners. The Petitioners also claimed that they had never received any claim of any type from the Complainant.
4. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum has observed in its order that the witness DW-1 of the Opposit
