State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jisha P.K vs Managing Director on 26 February, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/578 (Arisen out of Order Dated 23/07/2013 in Case No. CC/09/255 of District Kozhikode) 1. JISHA P K PANARKANDI PARAMBA, PANTHEERAKAVU P.O, KOZHIKKODE KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, POPULAR VEHICLE AND SERVICE LTD. MARUTI TRUE VALUE DIVISION, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKKODE KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.578/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 26/02/2014
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.255/2009 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode dated 23/07/2013)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Jisha P.K.,
Panarkandi Paramba,
Pantheerakavu P.O.,
Kozhikode.
(By Adv: N.G. Mahesh)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
Managing Director,
Popular Vehicle and Service Ltd.,
Maruthi True Value Division,
Wayanad Road, Civil Station, Kozhikode.
(By Adv: Dinesh Sajan & Bijesh.K)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the complainant on dismissal of C.C No.255/09 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.
2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a Maruti Car from the respondent's True Value Division on 24/07/08 on payment of Rs.1,38,000/-. The total purchase money was paid in 2 instalments ie. Rs.43,780/- on 07/07/08 and the balance amount on 24/07/2013. The complainant handed over 5 blank cheques for availing the loan from ICICI Bank. The original owner was one Mr. Muneer and the complainant handed over the relevant papers for transferring the vehicle to the name of the complainant. On 24/07/08 the very next day after signing the documents the vehicle met with an accident and was heavily damaged. The vehicle was entrusted for repair and the repair charges estimated to Rs.45,000/-. The opposite party further demanded Rs.18,000/- where as some other mechanics were ready to repair the vehicle for less than Rs.45,000/-. The accident happened while the complainant was travelling in the car. At that time she was carrying 4 months and due to the accident the complainant delivered pre mature baby and incurred a huge sum for treatment. The complainant sought for the relief of Rs.63,780/- along with compensation.
3. The opposite party contended in the version that the loan transaction between the ICICI Bank and the complainant was not within the knowledge of opposite party. It is admitted in the version the receipt of the entire purchase amount from the complainant. It is also admitted that the vehicle belonged to one Mr. Muneer. The complainant insisted to get delivery of the vehicle on 24/07/2008. It is on assurance given by the complainant that future liability regarding the vehicle will be met by the complainant with regard to any claim after 24/07/2008. It was informed by the opposite party that the complainant had to pay the depreciation value of replaced spare parts. The complainant issued an undertaking agreement on 24/07/2008 and took the custody of the vehicle. On 25/07/2008 the vehicle met with an accident and sustained heavy damages to the vehicle. It is contended that an amount of Rs.45,000/- estimated for repairing the vehicle. As the complainant has not changed the ownership in his name, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any amount. The contention raised by the complainant that she was pregnant and due to the accident the complainant gave birth to a pre-mature baby and incurred huge expense and caused financial loss is baseless. The expenses incurred towards taxi charges and caused mental agony are made for filing the complaint. The opposite party is not liable for any transaction between the complainant and the Bankers. It is admitted in the version that the complainant purchased the vehicle availing a loan on 24/07/2008 and the previous owner was one Mr. Muneer. The transfer of ownership of the vehicle was not taken place at the time of accident. The vehicle was lying with the opposite party's service station garage. There is no liability to pay any amount to the complainant. The complainant had not made Bankers a party to the proceedings. Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.
4. Before the Forum Below the complainant was examined as PW1 and the witness as PW2. Exbts. A1 to A13 and Exbt: B1 were marked on the part of complainant and opposite parties respectively. The Forum found that the complainant was negligent in driving and was not entitled for the depreciation value and found no merit in the complaint.
5. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the vehicle purchased from the respondent's true value division on 24/07/08 by paying Rs.1,38,000/-. The total purchase money was paid in 2 instalments on 07/07/2008 and 24/07/2008. For availing the loan from ICICI Bank, 5 blank cheques were issued by the complainant on assuring re-payment of loan amount. It is admitted that the vehicle was already in the name of one Mr. Muneer and took delivery on executing an undertaking agreement on 24/07/2008 (Exbt.B1) on the very next day the vehicle met with an accident causing heavy damages. The initial estimated repair charges of the vehicle was Rs.45,000/- and further demanded Rs.18,000/- from the appellant. It is argued that the vehicle could be repaired for lesser amount by some other agents and this was informed to the respondent. Due to the accident the complainant who was pregnant delivered a pre-mature baby causing financial loss and mental agony. The expenses for taxi charges also claimed by the complainant. As the loan was pending the transfer of ownership could not take place and the vehicle was not repaired by the respondent. The complainant's claim is for Rs.63,780/-. It is alleged by the complainant that the respondent had not repaired the vehicle or returned the vehicle to the complainant which resulted hindrance in claiming the insurance of the vehicle. From Exbt.B1 it is clear that the appellant took delivery of the vehicle and it is also clear that the complainant was ready to take the vehicle before changing the ownership. It is clear from the cross examination that the loan was taken from the ICICI Bank for purchase of the vehicle and the amount was already handed over to the opposite party on 24/07/2008 itself. From the deposition of PW2 that the repairing charges will come to Rs.45,000/- and he was not in a position to estimate the expenses for the damages to the inner part of the vehicle. He also admitted that he has not given any quotation for the repairing of vehicle. Further submission is that he was not aware of the depreciation charges against the metal and fiber parts. He also admitted that for the fiber parts normally 50% depreciation is calculated and it is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. It is argued that the appellant had to spend Rs.10,000/- towards taxi charges as she had to travel by taxi for treatment. The accident happened not due to the defect in the vehicle. The complainant claimed Rs.250/- per day to visit the hospital. Even now the vehicle is lying with the opposite party. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the vehicle was not repaired in time or returned to the complainant for less than Rs.45,000/-. The complainant also alleged that the opposite party had not changed the ownership in the R.C book. The loan availed from the ICICI Bank was handed over to the respondent as early as on 24/07/08. The complainant claimed Rs.63,780/- from the respondent.
6. The submission made by the respondent is that at the time of accident the vehicle was not transferred to the appellant's name. The appellant had already given an undertaking to the respondent that the appellant will be liable for any consequences arising out of any incident before the change of ownership. Unfortunately, the very next day of taking delivery of the vehicle from the respondent the vehicle met with an accident and sustained damages. It is settled law that the violation of condition does not entitle the appellant to claim any amount arising out of any accident before the changing the ownership of the vehicle. It is clear from documents and deposition that the appellant had not changed the ownership before accident. The repair charges for the vehicle claimed by the opposite party was Rs.45,000/- which was informed and the depreciation value for the fiber items had to be met by the appellant herself. The appellant was not amenable to pay the depreciation charges and the vehicle was lying with the respondent. The respondent had to initiate a notice to take back the vehicle from the garage of the respondent with immediate effect or else the appellant will be liable to pay Rs.60 per day towards the damages to the respondent. Even after issuing the notice the appellant had not cared to take back the vehicle and thereafter filed the complaint with untenable allegations. It is also proved that no Insurance Co. will reimburse the depreciation value of the spare parts replaced by the complainant. It is pertinent to point out that the complainant claimed Rs.63,780/- from the respondent and at the same time in the Chief Affidavit the complainant claimed Rs.99,588/-. The counsel vehemently opposed the claim for taxi charges incurred for the complainant to go to the hospital. Further in cross examination the complainant deposed that she visited the hospital 10 times and the amount per day comes to Rs.250/- whereas the receipts produced (Exbt.A6) shows a total amount of Rs.7,500/- for a period of 30 days. If at all admitting that she travelled 10 times to the hospital the claim made by the complainant is totally contradicting. Nothing has brought out in evidence to show that the vehicle can be repaired for a lesser amount. The undertaking Exbt.B1 clearly shows that the complainant had voluntarily and with free consent executed the undertaking agreement before taking delivery of the vehicle. The accident took place on the very next day and expenses for repair charges cannot be fastened upon the opposite party. The claim of the appellant/complainant is only to be dismissed.
7. We heard both sides in detail and gone through the records. It is clear from the evidence and documents that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle before transferring the ownership of the vehicle and for that purpose the appellant executed an undertaking agreement. It is also clear that the accident took place on the very next day of taking delivery of the vehicle from the opposite party. The expenses for repair estimated by the opposite party was Rs.45,000/- and the complainant's demand is for repairing the vehicle on a lower rate. At the same time the complaint is filed for Rs.63,780/-. It is also pertinent to point out that the depreciation value is to be met by the owner of the vehicle. The appellant was not amenable for giving the depreciation charges for the metal and fiber parts. As both the parties could not arrive at a settlement regarding the repair charges the vehicle was kept in the opposite parties premises. The opposite party issued a notice to pay rental of Rs.60/- per day for keeping the vehicle at the workshop premises of the opposite party. Of course this demand from the part of the respondent might be the related cause for filing the complaint. However, we are of considered view that at the time of accident took place the vehicle was not in the name of the complainant and the complainant could not claim the insurance charges as she was not the owner of the vehicle and it is very clear from evidence. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complaint is only to be dismissed. We find no ground to upturn the order passed by the Forum Below.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.578/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 26/02/2014
Sa.
[ SMT.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER