Minaketan Das - Complainant(s)


BM,Tata Motors Finance Ltd & Others - Opp.Party(s)


22 Jun 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/02/2014
( Date of Filing : 08 Jan 2014 )
1. Minaketan Das
1. BM,Tata Motors Finance Ltd & Others
2. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
1st floor, Sriram Complex,NH-55,Similipada,Angul
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
Dated : 22 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

          The  complainant Minaketan Das   has filed the present  petition U/s. 12 of C.P.Act,1986.

2.       Briefly stated the case of the  complainant is that he has purchased one  Indigo  CS LX  Model Car on 01.02.2011 from  Laxmi Raj Motors  Pvt. Ltd for Rs.4,65,767.00. The opp.party No.1  has   financed the  complainant  for  purchase   of the  aforesaid  vehicle. The  complainant has  paid  the  initial  hire amount  of Rs.1,46,109.00 to opp.party No.1 . Although the  invoice  amount of the  vehicle was Rs.4,65,767.00 , the opp.party No.1  has arbitrarily  and illegally  calculated the said  amount  to be Rs.4,89,109.00. As per the  calculation  of opp.party NO.1  the finance amount was Rs.3,42,000.00 . He has  added  fiancé charges of Rs.1,25,856.00. Again the opp.party No.1 illegally  added  insurance  provision of Rs.45,000.00, although the  yearly premium of the  insurance  was Rs. 10,363.00. He  calculated  the  contract  value to be Rs.5,12,856.00 .The  loan was disbursed to the  complainant  on 31.01.2011  which  was  to be repaid in 47 monthly  instalments  starting  from 02.03.2011  till 02.01.2015. The  finance  charges were   calculated  according to the  finance  amount  as well as the  period  of repayment. The opp.party No.1 has  supplied the   copy of  repayment  schedule  with PDC details to the  complainant. The   photo copy of the  sale invoice  of the  car is  Annexure- 1  and the photo copy of the   repayment  schedule  with PDC is  Annexure- 2. The vehicle was registered at RTO office, Angul on 04.02.2011 and  registration number  of the vehicle  is OR-19L-0773. Annexure- 3 is  the photo copy of the   registration certificate. Opp.party No.2  has issued the  insurance policy to the  complainant  bearing No. 02090031100110035340  dtd. 21.01.2011. Annexure- 4 is  the photo copy of the   said insurance  certificate. The opp.party No.1  insured the car with opp.party No.2 on 21.01.2011 and  he  calculated  the   premium of the  insurance  to  be  Rs.45,000.00 .The  complainant  was  paying the  instalments regularly  till 11.11.2021. On 22.11.2021  the said  vehicle  of the  complainant  was  subjected to    theft by  some unknown culprits  for which a  written report was submitted to the IIC,Angul P.S, who  registered the case U/s. 379 of IPC and  after  investigation  was over  submitted charge sheet before the Learned S.D.J.M,Angul on 27.11.2012  , who accepted the  same. Annexure- 5  is   the photo copy of the   of the   order sheet., written report etc. Immediately the  complainant  reported the  matter  to  both opp.parties and  demanded the  claim amount from opp.party No.2 . He  also  requested the opp.party No.2  not  to  demand the  monthly  instalment as the car was  subjected to theft. The I.O has submitted the  charge sheet as  “ fact  true  but no clue”, which  has been  accepted  the  Learned S.D.J.M. In support of  his claim  the  complainant  has submitted all the required documents  to opp.party No.2  for the  claim. The   opp.party No.2 illegally paid the claim amount   of Rs. 4,41,892.00  to opp.party No.1  on 10.10.2013  without the  consent of the  complainant . After receipt of the  entire amount  the opp.party No.1  terminated the  loan account   of the  complainant on 11.10.2013 without  paying any  amount to the  complainant. The opp.party No.1  has illegally  charged additional  recovery amount   of Rs. 2,11,230.40 to grab  the  total claim amount. Annexure- 7  is the photo copy of the   of the statement  of  account.  The opp.party No.1 illegally calculated documents charges, bank charges, insurance provision charges, retainer charges, legal expenses, income charges, LPC charges & terminal dues intentionally  to grab  the money  from opp.party No.2.   The  loan  amount along with  fiancé charges  was Rs.4,67,856.00 and the  insurance  premium was Rs. 10,363.00 which was paid by the  complainant. The opp.party No.1 received Rs. 1,03,056.00   from the  complainant  till the  vehicle was subjected to theft. An amount of Rs.2,49,307.00 was due  from the  complainant  till November,2011  .On 10.10.2013  opp.party No.1 received Rs.4,41,892.00  from  opp.party No.2  for the  vehicle   of the  complainant. The  finance charges was calculated  for the  period  to be  ended  on 02.01.2015. .Again the  amount of  insurance provision was  also  included  in the  monthly  instalments which was payable  after the  1st  year. The opp.party No.1   should  not  claim the  interest on the loan amount from  November, 2011  when the  vehicle was subjected to theft. He being the  co-owner  should   bear with the  complainant. The opp.party No.1  should pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,896.00 to the  complainant  which is  the  balance amount. The  complainant has paid Rs.1,47,109.00  for the  vehicle   from  his own  pocket along with the registration charges and   accessories. He  has also  paid the  loan amount of Rs.1,03,056.00  out of  the  total loan amount  Rs. 4,67,856.00 . The opp.party No.1  has illegally grabed the total   amount  without  paying the  amount to be received by the  complainant.

3.       The case  of  the  opp.party No.1 is that the  cost of the  vehicle was Rs.4,89,109.00  out of  which an amount   of Rs. 3,42,000.00  was  fiancéd  by opp.party No.1. The  complainant has  agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,856.00  towards finance charges  and Rs. 45,000.00 towards insurance provision  for  three years. The  complainant  has admitted  the said  fact in  paragraph- 5  of  his  complaint petition. The  complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,12,856.00 .As  per   loan agreement  the opp.party No.1  is responsible  for  insurance of  2nd, 3rd & 4th  year. 1st  year  insurance  was done  by  the  complainant  himself. The complainant is a regular defaulter  in paying the  monthly  instalments. The  cheque dtd.05.04.2011  issued by  the   complainant  was  dishonoured  due to  insufficient  funds. Opp.party No.1  being the  financer  , the  vehicle was hypothecated  to him.  The  opp.party No.2 has paid  the claim amount to opp.party No.1, following the provisions  of  Clause- 10.3  . The opp.party No.1  being the   lender  is entitled  to  appropriate any monies received from the  insurance  company  towards the  borrower’s obligation to the  lender  in respect of the  loan. The  borrower agreed that the   lender shall  not be  liable for  any loss on account of  non-renewal  of the   insurance  of the asset /delay/ non-payment  by the   insurance  company of any  settlement  claim by the borrower. The opp.party No.1  has waived an amount of  Rs. 24,702.84  and terminated the  loan account. The  copy of  simulated  premature termination  as on 10.10.2013   is Annexure- C of opp.party No.1.    Out of  total contract  value of Rs.5,12,856 .00  the opp.party No.1 received Rs.5,60,586.40 which  includes overdue charges, legal  expenses, banking charges etc. As the  complainant has  signed the loan agreement he is  bound by  its terms and  conditions and the onus is on the complainant to  prove his  case. In this   case the  complainant has signed the loan agreement  and he  is a  defaulter of opp.party No.1. The  opp.party No.1 has  absolute right to  collect interest and other charges on any delayed payment. The opp.party No.1 has adjusted the claim amount with the  dues charges of the  complainant. The  complainant has never suffered any financial loss. The  complainant has received NOC  from opp.party No.1 on 23.10.2013  from  local branch office. There is no  merit to file the   present case by the  complainant against  opp.party No.1  which may be dismissed.

4.       The opp.party No.2  filed  a separate  written statement .The  case of the opp.party No.2 is that the  case  filed by the complainant  against opp.party No.2 is  not maintainable. It is barred by  the law of  limitation.  There  is no  cause of  action  to file  this case  against opp.party No.2. The  complainant  had insured his car and  policy  No. 02090031100110035340  was issued  on 21.01.2011 for  one year i.e  from 21.01.2011  to 20.11.2012 .The premium  amount of Rs. 10,363.00 was paid to opp.party No.2 . The opp.party No.2 is  not aware of the  calculation of the premium of Rs.45,000.00  by opp.party No.1. The vehicle of the  complainant  was registered as OR-19L-0773 which was  stolen by some  unknown  culprits on 22.11.2011. It is a fact that  police submitted charge sheet as  “fact true no clue” .The  complainant  had submitted all the required documents to  opp.party No.2   and on that  basis the  claim has been settled. By  letter dtd. 09.10.2013  the  complainant requested the opp.party No.2 to disburse  the claim amount  of Rs.4,41,892.00  to opp.party No.1. Accordingly the opp.party No.2   has paid the said  amount to opp.party No.1. The   policy of  insurance of the subject  claim have  hypothecation  clause in  favour  of   opp.party No.1. So the  opp.party No.2  was bound  to pay the  insured   claim amount  to opp.party No.1. The opp.party No.2 is  not   liable  at all. There is  no deficiency in service on the  part of  opp.party No.2. Hence the  case may be  dismissed in favour  of opp.party No.2.

5.       Perused the   pleading of the  parties and the  documents  filed by  them. Admittedly the  complainant has   purchased  a car  by  availing  finance  from opp.party No.1  which was insured under opp.party No.2. It is  also admitted that the  said  vehicle  bearing Regd. No. OR-19L- 0773 was  subjected to  theft on 22.11.2011  which was reported  to the then IIC,Angul. It is  clear  from  Annexure- 5 that after  due  investigation   by I.O it was  found that the  vehicle  was subjected to theft  but there is no clue. The   final report   submitted by the I.O has  been  accepted  by the  Learned S.D.J.M,Angul on 27.11.2012. The  complainant  claimed that the  vehicle  was purchased  from Laxmi Raj Motors Pvt.Ltd on  payment  of  Rs. 4,65,767.00  out  of  which  he has  paid Rs.1,47,109.00 . According to the  complainant  an amount  of  Rs. 3,42,000.00 was financed  by opp.party No.1 and  an amount of Rs. 1,25,856.00   was  added as fiancé charges. From Annexure- 1  it  transpires that the value of the  vehicle  was Rs.4,65,767.00  , out of  which R.3,42,000.00  was  the finance  amount by opp.party No.1. Annexure- 2  is the photo copy of the    of the  repayment schedule  for  the   contract in between the  complainant  and opp.party No.1.  On  perusal of Annexure- 2  it  transpires that the  principal amount was Rs.3,42,000.00, finance charges was  Rs.1,25,856.00  and  the  insurance  amount was Rs.45,000.00. It further  transpires that the  total contract amount was Rs.5,12,856.00 .The opp.party No.1 has filed  the photo copy of the   loan-cum-hypothecation-cum-warranty agreement dtd. 30.01.2011. On  perusal of the  said agreement  it  appears that  the cost of the   purchased assets  was Rs. 4,89,109.00  and the  insurance amount   was Rs.45,000.00 . The  complainant has  signed the  said agreement. As he  has  signed the said agreement  , he  is  bound  by the  terms and  conditions of the  said  agreement  executed by him in favour of opp.party No.1. The opp.party No.2  has  paid an amount  of Rs.4,41,892.00  to opp.party No.1 towards the full and  final settlement of the  claim. Admittedly the vehicle purchased by the  complainant  was  hypothecated in favour of  the opp.party No.1. The opp.party No.2 has  filed the photo copy of  a letter executed by the  complainant and  submitted  to the  Senior Branch Manager of opp.party No.2  on  09.10.2013. On  perusal of the said letter it is  clear that the  complainant has  requested the opp.party no.2  to  pay the  claim amount  to the financer -opp.party No.1. Basing on such request  of the  complainant  the opp.party No.2 has paid the  insurance  claim   amount to opp.party No.1. So  there is  no  deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party No2.

6.       From the  documents relied   on by the complainant  and opp.party No.1 it is clear that the  complainant was to pay Rs. 5,12,856.00  to the opp.party No.1. It  also appears that the  complainant  was  not paying  the  monthly  instalments to opp.party No.1 regularly . So opp.party No.1  is  entitled  for  interest on the  delayed payment. The opp.party No.1 has received  the  claim  amount  from opp.party No.2  basing on the request of the  complainant. So there  is also no deficiency in service on  the part of  opp.party No.1. The  complainant  failed to prove that   there is  deficiency  in their service by the opp.parties.

7.       Hence order :-

: O R D E R :

          The case be and the  same  is  dismissed on contest against both the  opp.parties.

[HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo]
[HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.