YUDHVIR SINGH Vs. CITIBANK N A & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT Yudhvir Singh (appellant herein) purchased a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL -4CA -5174 in April, 1991. He got this car financed by Citi Bank, respondent No. 1. The total cost of the car including insurance charges and service charges was Rs. 3,81,259. The Citi Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3,20,000 and paid this amount directly to M/s. Vikas Motors. The amount was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 8,854. The appellant paid Rs. 85,258 out of which Rs. 61,253 were adjusted towards the price of the car and rest of the amount was withheld by respondent No. 1 as part of the service charges and insurance charges. According to the complainant, respondent No. 1 was to get the vehicle insured and deliver the insurance cover to the appellant within 20 days of the purchase of the vehicle which respondent No. 1 failed to do. According to him, the insurance cover was not handed over to him till the filing of the complaint i.e. 31st January, 1992. In the complaint it was averred that he visited the office of respondent No. 1 with a request to send the insurance cover which they did not do. The appellant did not pay the instalments for the month of July 1991 and November 1991. According to him the car met with an accident on 10th December, 1991. Thereafter, the appellant stopped making payment of the remaining instalments. He filed a complaint against respondent No. 1 and claimed Rs. 2,00,000 by way of damages to the complainant and directed not to recover the amount of instalments and take possession of the vehicle.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in its written statement took the objection that the complainant failed to adhere to the financial schedule as per agreement; that it is under no obligation to get the vehicle insured and rather it was the duty of the borrower to keep the vehicle insured throughout the tenure of the loan as per Clause 6(E) of the agreement. It was denied that the appellant had ever visited its office for taking of loan, etc. were not disputed.

(3.) ORIGINALLY the appellant did not implead M/s. Oriental Insurance Company respondent No. 2 as party respondent. During the pendency of the complaint M/s. Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 in its reply admitted that the vehicle was insured vide policy No. 21220/000/00000/31/92/233 for the period w.e.f. 16th April, 1991 to 15th April, 1992 in the name of the complainant. But as per terms of the insurance policy the policy would have been effective from the date when the complainant would inform the identification mark/registration number of the vehicle which was not done by him. It was further averred that the complainant/appellant did not file any claim with the insurance policy with regard to the alleged accident on 10th September, 1991 and that in the absence of any claim the Insurance Company could not take any steps regarding assessment and survey of the vehicle. In these circumstances there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company and consequently there was no question of payment of any compensation to the appellant.