 |
| Lawyer Danstan Omari |
Family Bank allegedly provided misleading information to its client on the insurance companies that insured a co-purchased motor vehicle in her possession.
Through lawyer Danstan Omari, Eunice Ngina blames Family Bank for her woes citing negligence by the lender for failing to furnish her with the details of her insurer. She claims that the non-disclosure was a violation of her rights to information.
Ms Ngina is now seeking a court declaration that Family Bank and Invesco Assurance violated her consumer rights to services of reasonable quality and information necessary to gain full benefits from goods and services together with protection of her economic interest as a consumer.
“We are seeking a declaration that non-disclosure of relevant information violated Ngina’s rights to information under Articles 35 1 (b) and Article 46 1 (b),” said lawyer Omari.
Documents filed in court indicate that Ngina approached the bank in the year 2014 seeking asset financing and had the right to be furnished with information it held in regard to insurance of the suit motor vehicle.
“The bank was bound to offer me unbiased information on insurance companies that could insure the motor vehicle but instead it presented Invesco Assurance Company without offering any alternatives,” she said.
Mr. Omari says that Family bank deliberately withheld very vital information contrary to provisions of Article 35(1) (b) which provides that “Every citizen has the right of access to information held by another person.
“Denial of information by the bank was in breach of Ngina’s consumer protection rights provided in the law,” says Omari.
He says that Ngina, being a consumer of the banking services of Family bank, was entitled to the protection as a consumer of the banking services of family bank and also compensation for loss or injury arising from defects in goods or services.
It is not in contention that the bank agreed to asset finance Ngina the 33-seater bus purchased and was registered jointly in her names and that of the bank.
Court documents indicate that the bank retained the logbook but later without notice even after she completed the payment, released the logbook to the person who had purchased it at an auction.
“The concealment of material information left Ngina in the dark and deprived her the entitlement to protect her economic interest as well as right to own property, “said Omari.
Ngina says that after the purchase of the suit motor vehicle, her interests were covered by an insurance policy issued by Invesco Assurance co-limited.
“When the vehicle was involved in an accident, InvescoAssurance Company failed to compensate the third party which led to a suit being filed against Ngina,” said Omari.
Ngina noted that Invesco was aware that the suit motor vehicle had been involved in an accident and that a suit had been filed and concluded in court but it neither took up its right to subrogation nor did it fulfill its statutory obligation of compensating the third party.
She added that she had legitimate expectations that the insurer; Invesco was statutorily duty bound under section 10 of the Insurance (Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks) Act CAP 405 to satisfy judgments against persons insured.
The failure therefore infringed on the petitioner’s rights to protection of economic interests as a consumer under article 46 (1) (c).
Omari said that the bank and its insurance agent were informed about occurrence of the accident on January 17,2017 noting to forward support documents including the police abstract in which the nature of the accident was described.
The bank in turn gave her forms which it requested her to fill assuring her that she would be compensated of the material loss as well as the fatal loss to the third party.
The plaintiff later learnt that Family Bank’s Insurance Agency had concealed some information from her to the extent that there were other forms that she ought to have filled to address the third party claim covered by Invesco Assurance, an omission that infringed on her right to property ownership under article 40 as well as that in article 46 on her rights to protection of economic interests as a consumer.
“Since the suit motor vehicle was attached and sold in auction on July 27,2019, I have lost earnings immensely as I was using the suit motor vehicle for commercial services which could earn me Sh 8,500 per day. On a monthly basis, I have lost Sh 204,000 and cumulatively an amount of Sh 1,836,000,” said Ngina
She contends that the bank retained possession of the logbook and without any notice it released it to a third party.
“We are seeking a declaration that Invesco Assurance Company, Family Bank Insurance Limited and Family Bank jointly breached Ngina’s rights to acquire and own property, “said Omari.
Ngina is also seeking orders compelling Invesco, Family bank insurance agency and the bank to compensate her for violations of her rights
“We pray the court to issue orders compelling the respondents to compensate Ngina Sh 3,800,000 being the market value of the motor vehicle she lost,” said Omari.
She is also seeking Sh 1,836,000 compensation for the loss of use of the suit vehicle and another order compelling Invesco to compensate the company that repaired the vehicle Sh 1,629,895 and stop further auction of her properties.
Meanwhile, Ngina was directed to serve the respondents with the petition, which they were required to respond to in seven days. The matter was filed at the high court of Kenya on April 15,2020 and the directive issued on April 24,2020. Citing the matter as urgent, the Court registrar directed the matter to be mentioned on May 6,2020.
