KOTAK MAHINDRA FINANCE LTD Vs. MANMOHAN AJUBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Shri Manmohan Ajubhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The Respondent's/Complainant's case is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 4,45,000 from the Petitioner for purchasing a Maruti Esteem Car and had paid 4 instalments of Rs. 5,447 in advance and had also issued 44 advance cheques for the remaining amount towards the repayment of loan. In addition to the 44 cheques, Respondent had also given 4 cheques for insurance premium to the Petitioner to whom the vehicle was hypothecated for payment since the responsibility to pay the insurance premium was on the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner paid the premium only upto 20.2.1996 and did not pay any premium after February, 1997. On 4.6.1997, the vehicle met with an accident which resulted in total loss. Respondent immediately contacted the Petitioner with the request to inform the Insurance Company in the matter so that his claim could be settled. However, the claim could not be settled with the Insurance Company on the grounds of non-payment of premium by the Petitioner to the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking that a direction be given to the Petitioner to pay the Respondent Rs. 4,85,000 for damages to the vehicle with compounded interest @ 24% and cost of the litigation.

(3.) Petitioner on the other hand denied the above contention and inter alia stated that while it is a fact that the Respondent had given 48 cheques but these did not include any advance cheques for payment of insurance premium. In fact the entire loan amount of Rs. 4,45,000 was payable in 48 instalments and, therefore, the 48 cheques given by the Respondent were towards repayment of loan instalments and not on account of payment of insurance. Also 14 of these cheques totally bounced and an amount of Rs. 3,57,000 is due and still payable by the Respondent. Further, as per condition No. 20(k) of the insurance policy, it was the Respondent who was liable to get the vehicle insured but since he did not do so, Petitioner had got it insured on 17.6.1997 and came to know thereafter that the Respondent had not given any cheque for payment of insurance premium. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and the complaint of the Respondent is thus without any merit.