Case nº Revision Petition No. 2735 of 2013 and I.A. No. 4681 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, March 25, 2014 (case Jitendra Kumar Dev Vs Mangma Finance Corporation Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: M.K. Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: None |
| President | V.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member) and Rekha Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | March 25, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
V.B. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
-
Petitioners who are the legal heirs of the (Original Complainant-Sh. Jitender Kumar Dev) have filed this Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') challenging the impugned order dated 21.3.2013, passed by Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (for short, 'State Commission'). Brief facts are that Jitender Kumar Dev-Original Complainant (since deceased) had taken a loan of Rs. 10,30,000 for purchase of a truck from Respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 2, as per Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.7.2007. The vehicle was insured with Respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1. The loan amount was repayable in 42 instalments but complainant had paid only 7 instalments.
-
On 5.3.2008, the truck in question was going to Durgapur after unloading goods at Kolkata, when certain miscreants looted the truck. Report to this effect was lodged with the Police. Thereafter, complainant lodged the claim with respondent No. 2. In the meantime, 4 cheques issued by complainant in favour of the respondent No. 1 got dishonoured. In fact, respondents were required to pay the value of truck, i.e., Rs. 12,54,000. At worst, respondent No. 1 could have adjusted the remaining amount of Rs. 8,17,400 from the same. However, respondent No. 1 is bound to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,36,000 to the complainant. With these allegations, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Giridih (for short, 'District Forum').
-
Respondent No. 1 in its written statement took the plea, that for the insurance claim of the petitioners, if any, respondent No. 2 alone is responsible. However, the complainant had withheld a huge sum of Rs. 11,47,726 of the answering respondent, since complainant continuously defaulted in making the payment of the agreed monthly instalments. Hence, complainant had no case against respondent No. 1.
-
Respondent No. 2 in its written statement took the plea that no particulars of insurance policy have been disclosed by the complainant, as such no case is made out against it.
-
District Forum, by order dated 11.1.2011, allowed the complaint and directed respondent No. 2 to pay the insured amount to the complainant after calculation along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of application till payment. Respondent No. 2 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost.
-
Order of the District Forum...
To continue reading
Request your trial