Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 4 pages 2 separate sheets of paper. 

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is a permanent resident of above noted address and a Citizen of India by birth. The complainant was a regular customer and consumer of the O.P. insurance company and had purchased a vehicle (truck) for maintaining his livelihood, vide Loan Contract No. ESKPTM00041, Customer ID- ES00029598, Contract Date 20.09.2016, Vehicle Registration No. WB 29 B 2094, Engine No. GYPZ130363, Chassis No. MB1CTCFDZGPYV0261. After taking the loan, the complainant was regularly paying the monthly installments without any fail, and he was paying the same by cash and by depositing the same at the receiving counter of the OP insurance company office. One staff namely Gilman sultan Ansari was the receiving clerk appointed by the OP Company who regularly sat on the chair of the receiving counter of the Op Company’s office, and he used to receive the monthly installments from the complainant by issuing receipts. On 22.03.2018 the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50000/- to the OP Company through that receiving clerk Gilman Sultan Ansari, however, the said staff issued two (2) numbers of receipts each mentioning the payment of RS. 25000/-, and one of which  was marked as “DUPLICATE” at it’s heading.  On being asked the reasons for issuing two receipts (one of which being marked as “DUPLICATE”) the staff Gilman Sultan Ansari replied that “It was nothing but an official process, to facilitate an easier “Computer Entry’ and the Complainant should not be worried at all as the whole Rs. 50000/- was deposited vide those two receipts”. At that point of time there was nothing to raise any doubt over such act of issuing two receipts by the staff of the OP Company and the Complainant, out of shear trust, faith and belief; the Complainant did not raise any further questions. In the same way, on 24.04.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 46000/- and was given two receipts of Rs. 23000/- each. On 21.05.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 48000/- and the said staff this time issued a receipt of Company pad without mentioning the date. Again on 23.06.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 50000/- and was given two receipts of Rs. 25000/- each. Finally on 21.08.2018 the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 43000/- towards his final payment of monthly installments however this time no receipt was issued, but the mobile all record is there. After the payment of final installment on 21.08.2018, the Complainant visited the office of the OP on 26.08.2018 to meet the branch manager and demanded the “loan clearance certificate” “no due certificate” etc. To the utter surprise of the Complainant, the OP Company’s the then branch manager disclosed that still an amount of Rs. 145000/- was due at that time, and provide an account statement from where it could became evident that, only Rs. 25000/- was entered into the account on 22.03.2018, Rs. 23000/- was entered into the account on 24.04.2018, and Rs. 25000/- was entered into the account on 23.06.2018 and nothing else, despite making the whole payments by the complainant as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. Being utmost stunned, the complainant showed all the receipts, documents and call records to the branch manager, but he simply stated that the whole act of fraud had been done by the staff Gilman Sultan Ansari, who had left his job few days ago, and the OP Company should not take any liability of the act done by that ex-staff. The complainant actually got a “bolt from the blue” and initiated police case against both the branch manager and said staff vide M.P. Case No.- 433/2018 u/s 156(3) Cr PC (FIR TREAT). That despite of the same the OP Company was desperate and started illegal threat of repossessing the vehicle on demand of the sum of Rs. 145000/- on regular basis. Being hopeless, the complainant initiated a Civil Suit bearing No. other Suit No. 85/2018 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 1st Court Tamluk, in which the Ld. Court was pleased to allow an Ad-Interim Injunction on 11.10.2018 “restraining the OP from confiscation of the vehicle” and the said order was extended on various dates. In spite of the specific order from the Ld. Civil Court, the adamant, desperate and furious OP committed theft of the vehicle on 13.06.2019 from the possession of the complainant. The complainant again lodged complaint against such illegal act of the OP but without any result. Till date the complainant is in complete darkness about the whereabouts of his vehicle and the further activities of the OP. It is humbly submitted that insurance is a business which depends upon the trust, faith and belief of common people but the activities of the O.P. bank, in illegal and purposive connivance with it’s staff Gilman Sultan Ansari, are fully against those fair policy of business, and not only that, it breaches several provisions of law of the land and results in gross deficiency in rendering service. The complainant being a bona fide consumer under the O.P has been forced to suffer a severe loss, harassment, illegality, threat and mental pain due to gross negligence and severe deficiency in rendering service by the OP. The whole act done by Opposite Party’s end is not only illegal and against the settled principles of law, but also tantamount to sheer deficiency in rendering service and negligence causing serious mental agony and economical loss to the complainant. Finding no other alternatives the Complainant is hereby filing this Case before Ld. Commission praying for the following reliefs. The cause of action of this case has finally occurred on 13.06.2019 since the criminal and civil cases were pending, there is a little and explainable delay in lodging this case. All the relevant papers and documents have been filed in Xerox copies. Therefore, the complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Parties: To provide the loan clearance/no due certificate to the complainant with immediate effect and to Return Back the Vehicle bearing Registration No. WB 29 B. 2094, Engine No. GYPZ130363, Chassis No.- MB1CTCFDZGPYV0261, to pay a compensation to the Complainant by the Opposite Party for negligence and deficiency in service, business loss and harassment, to pay litigation cost of Rs. 30000/- to the complainant for conducting this case, and to pass such other orders of relief as the Ld. Commission may deem fit and proper. 

Notice was duly served upon the op. However, these op has preferred to see that the case be decided ex-parte against it.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?   

2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transactions made by him with the O.P in the matter of loan.  The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

          On evaluation of the unchallenged oral testimony of the complainant it appears that the complainant stated that he had purchased a vehicle (truck) for maintaining his livelihood, vide Loan Contract No. ESKPTM00041, Customer ID- ES00029598, Contract Date 20.09.2016, Vehicle Registration No. WB 29 B 2094, Engine No.- GYPZ130363, Chassis No.- MB1CTCFDZGPYV0261. After taking the loan, the complainant was regularly paying the monthly installments without any fail, and he was paying the same by cash and by depositing the same at the receiving counter of the OP insurance company office. One staff namely Gilman sultan Ansari was the receiving clerk appointed by the OP Company who regularly sat on the chair of the receiving counter of the Op Company’s office, and he used to receive the monthly installments from the complainant by issuing receipts. On 22.03.2018 the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 50000/- to the OP Company through that receiving clerk Gilman Sultan Ansari, however, the said staff issued two (2) numbers of receipts each mentioning the payment of RS. 25000/-, and one of which h was marked as “DUPLICATE” at it’s heading.  On being asked the reasons for issuing two receipts (one of which being marked as “DUPLICATE”) the staff Gilman Sultan Ansari replied that “It was nothing but an official process, to facilitate an easier “Computer Entry’ and the Complainant should not be worried at all as the whole Rs. 50000/- was deposited vide those two receipts”. At that point of time there was nothing to raise any doubt over such act of issuing two receipts by the staff of the OP Company and the Complainant, out of shear trust, faith and belief; the Complainant did not raise any further questions. In the same way, on 24.04.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 46000/- and was given two receipts of Rs. 23000/- each. On 21.05.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 48000/-and the said staff this time issued a receipt of Company pad without mentioning the date. Again on 23.06.2018, the Complainant deposited Rs. 50000/- and was given two receipts of Rs. 25000/- each . Finally on 21.08.2018 the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 43000/-towards his final payment of monthly installments however this time no receipt was issued, but the mobile all record is there. After the payment of final installment on 21.08.2018, the Complainant visited the office of the OP on 26.08.2018 to meet the branch manager and demanded the “loan clearance certificate”/ “no due certificate” etc. To the utter surprise of the Complainant, the OP Company’s the then branch manager disclosed that still an amount of Rs. 145000/- was due at that time, and provide an account statement from where it could became evident that, only Rs. 25000/-was entered into the account on 22.03.2018, Rs. 23000/- was entered into the account on 24.04.2018, and Rs. 25000/- was entered into the account on 23.06.2018 and nothing else, despite making the whole payments by the complainant as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. Being utmost stunned, the complainant showed all the receipts, documents and call records to the branch manager, but he simply stated that the whole act of fraud had been done by the staff Gilman Sultan Ansari, who had left his job few days ago, and the OP Company should not take any liability of the act done by that ex-staff. The complainant actually got a “bolt from the blue” and initiated police case against both the branch manager and said staff vide M.P. Case No.- 433/2018 u/s 156(3) Cr PC (FIR TREAT). That despite of the same the OP Company was desperate and started illegal threat of repossessing the vehicle on demand of the sum of Rs. 145000/- on regular basis. Being hopeless, the complainant initiated a Civil Suit bearing No. other Suit No. 85/2018 before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 1st Court Tamluk, in which the Ld. Court was pleased to allow an Ad-Interim Injunction on 11.10.2018 “restraining the OP from confiscation of the vehicle” and the said order was extended on various dates. In spite of the specific order from the Ld. Civil Court, the adamant, desperate and furious OP committed theft of the vehicle on 13.06.2019 from the possession of the complainant. The complainant again lodged complaint against such illegal act of the OP but without any result. Till date the complainant is in complete darkness about the whereabouts of his vehicle and the further activities of the OP. It is  submitted that insurance is a business which depends upon the trust, faith and belief of common people but the activities of the O.P. bank, in illegal and purposive connivance with it’s staff Gilman Sultan Ansari, are fully against those fair policy of business, and not only that, it breaches several provisions of law of the land and results in gross deficiency in rendering service.

         The op can not get absolved from the commission of any misdeed or omission done by its servant ,staff or collection agent. The complainant has left no stone un turned to save the vehicle from the vicious circle of the op. He lodged two FIRs , police had not taken any step to ascertain the present status of the vehicle . The ops have also not turned up to offer any version about the allegation of theft  or of taking possession the vehicle during the running of injunction order of the Ld Civil Court against them.  From our above observation ,it appears that complainant has been able to bring home the elements of Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency of service against the ops. The op is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 73,000/- which was misappropriated  by its staff after due deposit by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get interest over the said amount , NOC , compensation for harassment and litigation costs. The complainant has become  unable to show the present status of the vehicle or the results of the criminal cases. So, no order can be passed regarding claim/ disposal of the vehicle.

Both the points are decided in favour of the complainant accordingly.

The complainant case succeeds.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the CC/131 of 2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP.

The op is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs. 73,000/- which was misappropriated  by its staff after due deposit by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get simple interest @ 10% per annum over the said amount from the date of filing of this case till actual payment.

       The op is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as towards litigation costs and to issue No Dues Certificate to the Complainant.

       The op will comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of this order; in default the complainant would be at liberty to put the decree into execution.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.