Karnataka

Bidar

CC/42/2013

Smt.Shabnam Begum W/o Syed Peer Pasha - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COM. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY MATHPATI

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                          C.C.No. 42/2013

 

                                                                                             Date of filing : 20/08/2013

 

                                                                                          Date of disposal : 31/08/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:        Smt. Shabnam Begum W/o Late Syed Peer Pasha

                                            Age: 48 years, Occ: House Hold,

                                           R/o H.No.12-109

                                           Kaman Base, Basavakalyan Cist: Bidar

       

 

                                

 (By Sri Mathpati Sanjay., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-     1.   The Registered Office Shriram Transport finance
                                          Company Ltd. 3^rd Floor, Mukambika Complex No.4,
                                          Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai- 600004.

 

2.    Branch office, Shriram Transport Finance Company
       Ltd. 2^nd floor, Above axis bank, Near Dr. Holkunde
       Hospital, Tripurant road Basavakalyan-585327.

 

3.    Sriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. No.3-6-478, 3^rd
       floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar,
       Hyderabad-500029.

 

            ( R1. To R3 by Sri. V. S. Zalki., Advocate)                               

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              Herein, the complainant, a widow is before this forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the opponents, here in after described. She has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 

2.          She alleges that, her late husband Syed Peer Pasha, a resident of Basavakalyan, Bidar had availed a loan to purchase an Ashok Leyland Lorry, which was later registered as MH 25 U 1477.  At the time of availing the loan, O.Ps No.1 and 2, while sanctioning the LOAN, ALSO OFFERED TO PROVIDE “Sriram Credit Shield plan policy” for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.  The vehicle was hypothecated in favour of O.Ps.No.1 and 2 and the policy was obtained.  The complainant further describes that, in the month of August 2012, her late husband started complaining of stomach pain and initially availed treatment at Basavakalyan.  Thereafter, the deceased was taken for further treatment to Hyderabad, during the first week of September, 2012, wherein diagnosis was made that, he was afflicted by liver cancer and the chance of survival was remote.  Ultimately he died due to such affliction on 31.10.2012. 

 

3.   The complainant further avers that, she informed the fact of her husband’s death to O.Ps No 1and 2 forthwith, filed an affidavit and requested them to receive the pending E.M.I.S till her husband’s death, which was though initially agreed upon by the opponents, to close the loan account within forty days, later the offer was rejected disclosing that, the insured amount was only Rs.4,60,000/- and they demanded the repayment of the full loan amount and even threatened to seize the Lorry under reference.  She alleges that, opponents 1 and 2 had played a fraud by promising policy coverage for Rs.10 Lakhs but only obtaining a policy for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/-.

 

4.           The complainant further submits, owing to the defiance attitude of opponents 1 and 2, she got issued a legal notice on 01.03.2013, offering to defray the outstanding payments till the death of her husband, which was received by the later on 02.03.2013 and 04.03.2013, but they have not come forward to receive the same within fifteen days as called upon, whereby the cause of action of this case had arisen in her favour of 20.03.2013 and she is before this forum.

 

5.      It is the further say of the complainant that, in the face of the threats of seizure, she has kept the vehicle idle for seven months, sustaining a loss of business to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/- and she demands a reimbursement from the opponents 1 and 2.

 

6.   She claims that, the opponents No.1 and 2 be held liable for obtaining a policy of lesser sum of Rs.4,60,000/- against the deliberation of Rs.10 lakhs, be further directed to receive the due payments till the death of her husband, close the loan account and cancel the hypothecation and other relief (s)

 

      After notice, the opponents had put up appearances through counsel of their choice and had filed their respective versions belatedly, specially being permitted by this court and the gist’s of their objections as follows:-

 

Opponents No.1 and 2.

1. The claim of complainant is arbitrary, without basis, designed to make an undue gain.
2. Deficiency of service allegation are false.
3. O.P No.1 avers that, the allegations are vague.
4. The insurance policy claimed to be Rs.10 Lakhs is false.
5. All other allegations have been denied.
6. In para 8, of the versions, they have claimed that, late Syed Peer Pasha had obtained the vehicle for commercial purpose and is not eligible to be treated as a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(0) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
7. In the further plea in Para-12 at Para- 3 it is claimed that, late Syed Peer Pasha, was owning  KA-32-A-4563, MH-25-U-1477, and AP-10-V-8216, thereby he was not a consumer but availed loans to acquire Lorries for commercial purpose.
8. Further, the O.Ps.No.1 and 2 claim that, they had no role in the credit shield policy (Sic- The Three opponents are from the same coglomoration).

 

 

 

 

Opponent No.3.

1. The complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the C.P. Act.
2. There is no deficiency of service in the part of O.P.No.3.
3. The fact of hypothecation and issuance of policy admitted.
4. However, Juxtaposed to the claims of opponents No.1 and 2, The O.P.No.3 vide Ex.R16 admits that, the policy amount was Rs.6,00,000/- (claims of opponents No.1 and 2 to the tune of RS.4,60,000/-)

 

Painstakingly, we observe that, the opponents (1 and 2 in one part) and opponent No.3 in the other, are rather “hunting with hounds and running with hares” which is deplorable per se. 

   

     Both sides, have filed their respective evidence affidavits, written arguments and documents (detailed at the end of this order).

 

       To our dismay, we observe a document at Ex.R12 executed by late Syed Peer Pasha, date. 22.09.2010, in which he had admitted regarding acquisition of an earlier vehicle bearing No.KA32 A 4513 and had applied for loan to acquire a new Leyland Vehicle.

 

        This aspect alone, goes a long way to prove that , he was in the process of acquiring a number of motor vehicles for commercial purpose availing borrowings from the opponents No.1 and 2, thus deprieving himself and his L.R.S. to be consumers  as defined in section 2 (1) (d) and (0) hence, we are constrained to pass the following:-

 

 

 

 

ORDERS

1. The complaint is dismissed as not due.
2. There would be no order as to costs or compensations.
3. The complaint would be at liberty to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction, the matter being of a contract, if so advised.

    ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31^st day of  August-2016 )

 

 

              Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

  Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.                                              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Documents relied upon by the parties, complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Notarised copy of Registration. 
2. Ex.P.2- Notarised copy of death certificate.
3. Ex.P.3- Office copy f legal notice date: 01.03.2013.
4. Ex.P.4-Postal receipt.
5. Ex.P.5-Postal acknowledgement(2).
6. Ex.P.6- Certificate of Insurance.
7. Ex.P.7 to 18- Money receipt of opponents.

 

 

Documents produced by the Opponent (1 and 2).

1.  Ex.R1- Loan cum Hypothecation agreement.          
2. Ex.R2- Annexure to loan agreement.
3. Ex.R3- Annexure to loan agreement.
4. Ex.R4- Certificate of Insurance.
5. Ex.R5- Registration certificate of the vehicle.
6. Ex.R6- Certificate cum policy schedule.
7. Ex.R7- Certificate of Transport Deptt.of Aurangabad, Maharastra. (Address of owner varies)
8. Ex.R8- Authorisation Certificate of Transport Deptt., Maharastra.
9. Ex.R9- Certificate of fitness.
10. Ex.R10- True copy o Ledger A/C.
11. Ex.R11- G.P.A. instrument.
12. Ex.R12- Application of Syed Peer Pasha (late) to acquire new vehicle.
13. Ex.R13- Notice of opponents in 2011.
14. Ex.R14- another notice of opponents date: 22.08.2012.
15. Ex.R15- Further notice of opponents date: 05.07.2013.
16. Ex.R16- Copy of certificate of Insurance by Op. No.3.
17. Ex.R17- Schedule of certificate of Insurance.

 

              Sd/-                                                                             Sd/-

  Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.