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.
