RAJENDRA JAGANNATH GHORPADE Vs. DATTABUVA KALAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the complaint in brief are that the complainant had a Savings Bank A/c No.4245 with the opposite party No.1. Subsequently, he purchased shares worth Rs.5,400/- and became a member of the opposite party No.1. He wanted to purchase a Tempo Trax Jeep and made an application to the opposite party for sanction of loan. After obtaining the necessary deposits from the complainant, the opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,16,000/- and the Cheque No.2377 for Rs.2,88,056/- was issued to the dealers on 14.11.1995. On 23.2.1996, he received the Tempo Trax, Model Town and Country Jeep with Registration No. MH-01-S/8045. The complainant had paid the registration charges and had also paid the premium for the comprehensive insurance policy of the vehicle. For this purpose, he required loan of Rs.26,188/- which was not sanctioned by the opposite parties. But the complainant himself had managed the payment of registration charges and the payment of premium for the insurance. The insurance policy was valid for the period from 26.2.1996 to 25.2.1997. Both on the registration document as well as the insurance policy, the endorsement about liability of the opposite parties was duly endorsed. The complainant repaid the monthly instalments of the loan alongwith interest till November, 1996. But, thereafter, due to financial difficulties, he could not repay the monthly instalments from December, 1996. Further, in February, 1997, the insurance policy became due for renewal and the one time tax of the vehicle was also to be paid. Both these amounted to Rs.25,000/- which he could not pay. On 26.8.1997, the opposite party-Bank sent a notice to the complainant to pay the 9 monthly instalments which were defaulted by him and the Bank also asked the complainant to get the insurance renewed which was due for renewal in February, 1997. Obviously, the complainant himself could not get the insurance policy renewed. In the subsequent paragraphs of the complaint, he has blamed the opposite party Bank for not advancing loans to get the insurance policy renewed. They could have sanctioned the loan, paid the premium to the Insurance Company and should have got the policy renewed. In the meanwhile, on 14.6.1997, the Tempo Trax Jeep No. MH-01/s/8045 was stolen away from Worli in Mumbai and it was reported to the Worli Police Station on 15.6.1997. According to the complainant, it was the duty of the Bank to get the insurance policy renewed by advancing the loan on its own since they were maintaining the register of the insurance policy of the complainant. He has, therefore, claimed that the opposite party should be ordered to pay the amount of the jeep Rs.3,14,244/- + additional vehicle charges Rs.500/-, legal expenses of Rs.10,000/- and mental torture, inconvenience, harassment, etc.- Rs.1 lakh. The opposite party in their written submissions have explained that as per the Clause No.6 of the agreement made between the opposite party and the complainant it was the responsibility of the complainant to have the insurance of the vehicle at his cost and that it was his duty to keep the vehicle in proper condition. Insurance policy was with the complainant and it was never kept in the custody of the opposite party Bank. It was never the responsibility to pay the premium and get the policy renewed. They are relying upon the various terms and conditions of the agreement, a copy of which is placed on record. According to the opposite parties, it is the complainant who committed defaults in the repayment of the monthly instalments and he neglected and failed in getting the insurance policy renewed. They have denied that there was any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

(2.) The complainant and the opposite parties have submitted their written notes of arguments which are placed on record. According to the complainant, it was the duty of the opposite parties to get the insurance policy renewed while the condition in the agreement casts the responsibility on the complainant himself. We have considered the documents placed by the complainant himself before us. Careful perusal of the complaint reveals that it is the complainant who is at fault and not the opposite parties. On appreciation of the documentary evidence produced by the complainant and the opposite parties, we have arrived at the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In fact, it is the complainant who himself was negligent and he never took necessary action to pay the monthly instalments regularly and also get the insurance policy renewed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this complaint, we pass the following order.

(3.) The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.