State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. vs Mohinder Kumar on 10 March, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 457 of 2015
Date of institution: 28.4.2015
Date of Decision:10.3.2016
Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Village Dhareri Jattan, Bhadurgarh, Rajpura Road,
Patiala through its Proprietor/Managing Director.
Appellant/Op No.1
Versus
1. Mohinder Kumar son of Dharampal, resident of H. No. 45-D,
Darshana Colony, District Patiala through its Special Power of
Attorney Rajeev Bedi son of Bhupinder Singh Bedi, R/o H. No.
3947/1, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, SCO 232-234,
Sector 34-A, Chandigarh - 160022 through its Managing Director.
3. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Bank Lane Choti
Baradari, Patiala.
Respondent Nos.2&3/Op No.2&3
First Appeal against the order dated 5.2.2015
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Hardeep Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. A.L. Aggarwal, Advocate
First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 2
For respondent No.2 : Ex.-parte.
For respondent No.3 : Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/Op No.1(hereinafter referred as Op No.1) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 5.2.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 222 dated 20.8.2014 vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant(hereinafter referred as complainant) was accepted with the direction to Op No. 1 either to get the vehicle of the complainant repaired or to pay Rs. 3,70,201/-. In case complainant opts for the payment of the loss of Rs. 3,70,201/-, the same shall be paid by Op No. 1 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of assessment i.e. 19.12.2013. In case complainant opts for the repair of the vehicle, it was ordered to be done within a period of one month on complainant giving option in writing to Op No. 1, otherwise, he was to make the payment. Rs. 5,000/- was assessed as cost of the litigation.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against OPs on the averments that Op No.1 is authorised Dealer of Mahindra Company. On 25.7.2013, complainant had purchased a car model Verito D34/2013 make Mahindra from Op No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,88,686/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,30,836/- was financed by Op No. 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,57,850/- was deposited by the complainant First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 3 as Margin money with Op No. 1. On 29.7.2013, on the instructions of Op No. 1, complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,150/- with Op No. 1 for registration of the vehicle and he also got signed form, papers, affidavit, documents etc. from the complainant and had assured to get issued registration certificate within a week. After expiry of one week, complainant approached Op No. 1 many times but every time Op No. 1 told the complainant that they have been able to get the registration certificate but the same will remain in possession of Op No. 1. Complainant asked for photocopy to which Op No. 1 refused. On 24.8.2013, complainant alongwith his family had gone to pay obeisance to Shree Naina Devi Mata and on the next day 25.8.2013 vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Budhal Mithasar Gurudwara on Nangal=Anandpur Sahib Road as stray cow had suddenly appeared before the vehicle. DDR No. 14 dated 25.8.2013 was registered in P.S. Anandpur Sahib. Complainant lodged the claim with Op No. 2 as the vehicle was fully insured. Op No.2 in connivance with Op Nos. 1 & 3 deputed Damanjit Singh to survey the accidental vehicle and surveyor deliberately and malafidely assessed the loss of the vehicle on cash loss basis with its procured and vague reasons that temporary registration number of the vehicle had expired on 24.8.2013 and accident took place on 25.8.2013 and assessed an amount of Rs. 2,27,378/-, without taking into consideration the real and true facts. Since the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 35,150/- to Op No. 1 for registration purposes, therefore, complainant was not at fault. It was Op No. 1 who was at fault not to get the registration certificate (in short 'RC') within time. First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 4 Therefore, Ops were deficient in their service. Accordingly, complaint was filed with the direction to Ops to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,61,086/- for total loss occurred to his vehicle, pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- for unnecessary litigation. They be directed to withdraw assessment report dated 25.12.2013, to direct Op No. 1 to issue bill of correct and actual amount received from the complainant.
3. Complainant was contested by Ops. Op No. 1 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable in the present form and that the complaint was false and frivolous. It was admitted that the complainant had purchased Verito car from this Op, which was financed by Op No. 3 and temporary registration number was issued on 25.7.2013. It was also admitted that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,150/- with this Op for registration of the vehicle and also signed the necessary documents on 29.7.2013, however, it was denied that Op No. 1 had assured the complainant to get the RC issued within a period of one week. RC was applied by Op No. 1 and the same was duly delivered to the complainant. It was denied that vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 25.8.2017 on Budhal Mithasar Gurudwara on Nangal Anandpur Sahib Road. It was denied that Op No. 2 in connivance with Op Nos. 1 & 3 in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant deputed Damanjit Singh to assess the loss. It was denied that Damanjit Singh in connivance with Op Nos. 1 & 2 deliberately and malafidely assessed the loss on cash loss basis with vague reasons that temporary registration number of the vehicle had First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 5 expired on 24.8.2013. It was denied for want of knowledge that surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,27,378/-. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint was without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Op No. 2 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable as claim was repudiated vide letter dated 8.5.2014. As on the date of loss, complainant was not having permanent registration number and violated the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, claim was not payable; there was no deficiency in service on the part of this Op and that complicated questions of law and facts were involved, which cannot be answered in summary procedure under the Act, therefore, matter was relegated to the Civil Court. On merits, it was stated that vehicle of the complainant was given temporary registration number PB-11ZC (Temp.) 0726, which was valid for the period 25.7.2013 to 24.8.2013 and the vehicle was insured with this Op for the period 25.7.2013 to 24.7.2014 for a sum of Rs. 6,30,838/- vide policy No. 0100813802. On receipt of intimation of loss to the vehicle they had deputed independent IRDA Licenced Surveyor Mr. Damanjit Singh to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,27,378/-. It was denied that the surveyor assessed the less loss in connivance with Ops. Claim was not payable as on the date of accident complainant was not having permanent registration number as the period of temporary registration number was over. He violated provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was denied that the vehicle was a case of total First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 6 damage. Claim was denied as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Therefore, complaint be dismissed.
5. Op No. 3 in its written reply took the preliminary objections that complaint was not maintainable in the present form; complainant had got no cause of action against this Op; complainant had concealed the vital facts from the Forum. He was regular defaulter in making the payment of instalments in time. As on 4.11.2014 a sum of Rs. 5,53,500/- was outstanding. On merits, preliminary objections stated above were reiterated. It was denied that Surveyor appointed by Op No. 2 had given any report in connivance with this Op. There was no deficiency in service on the part of this Op. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
6. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
7. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CA, receipt Ex. C-1, tax invoice Ex. C-2, temporary certificate of registration Ex. C-3, insurance cover note Ex. C-4, receipt for RC Ex. C-5, FIR Ex. C-6, Inspection Check Sheet Ex. C-7, RC Ex. C-8, receipt of High Security Number Plate Ex. C-9, consent letter Ex. C-10, surveyor report Ex. C- 11, surveyor letter Ex. C-12, postal receipt Ex. C-13, reminder Ex. C- 14, postal receipt Ex. C-15, letter to branch Manager Ex. C-16, postal receipt Ex. C-17, letter to Finance Manager Ex. C-18, letter to Dy. Manager Claims Ex. C-19, postal receipts Ex. C-20, power of attorney Ex. C-21, online form Ex. C-22, accessories bill Ex. C-23. On First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 7 the other hand, Op No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavits of Amit Jindal Ex. OP-A, Mohd. Azhar Wasi Ex. Op-B, Damanjit Singh, Surveyor Ex. Op-C, Gurpreet Singh, Manager Ex. OPD, statement of a/c Ex. Op-1, repudiation letter Ex. Op-2, postal receipt Ex. Op-3, survey report Ex. Op-4, claim form Ex. Op-5, letter Ex. Op-6, RC Ex. Op-7, intimation Ex. Op-8, policy Ex. Op-9, receipt Ex. Op-10, tax invoice Ex. Op-11, temporary registration number Ex. Op-12.
8. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written versions filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, complaint was allowed as referred above by observing that there was no fault on the part of the complainant as he had deposited the registration amount with Op No. 1 on 29.7.2013, temporary registration certificate was issued on 25.7.2013, it came to end on 24.8.2013, whereas accident took place on 25.8.2013 and registration certificate was got prepared by Op No. 1 on 31.8.2013. On account of violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claim was repudiated by Op No. 2. It was on account of default on the part of Op No. 1, therefore, Op No. 1 was liable to indemnify the complainant as per the order referred above.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, appellant/OP No. 1 has filed the present appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. In the appeal, it has been stated that the findings of the District Forum are liable to be set aside on the ground that although temporary registration had expired on 24.8.2014 but the policy was valid from 25.7.2013 to 24.7.2014, therefore, insurance company was First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 8 liable to make the payment and that this appellant/Op No. 1 had never alleged that he will get the registration certificate issued within a period of one week. Number of requests were made to the complainant to appear before the DTO office but he did not appear, therefore, there was delay in preparation of the registration certificate.
12. Whereas counsel for the complainant argued that it is admitted from the pleadings of OP No. 1 that registration charges i.e. Rs. 35,150/- were deposited by the complainant with Op No. 1 on 29.7.2013. These charges were deposited by Op No. 1 with Registration Authority on 31.8.2013 and Registration Certificate was issued on 31.8.2013. Temporary certificate was valid only upto 24.8.2013 and accident took place on 25.8.2013.
13. It is clear from the pleadings that when the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from Op No. 1 he was issued the temporary RC PB-11ZC (Temp.) 0726, which was valid for the period 25.7.2013 to 24.8.2013. On 29.7.2013, complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 35,150/- with Op No. 1 for getting permanent RC. This is also admitted by Op No. 1 in its reply. However, due to the bad luck of the complainant, the vehicle met with an accident on 25.8.2013. Claim was lodged with Op No. 2. They appointed the Surveyor and report of loss was taken but claim was repudiated as per violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was relied upon. Complainant has not filed any appeal challenging the ratio of law held in Narinder Singh's case (supra). In case the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs. 35,150/- for getting the permanent RC then it was for Op No. 1 to deposit this First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 9 amount with Registration Authority and to get permanent RC. However, the complainant has placed on the record the document Ex. C-22 vide which a sum of Rs. 33,963/- and Rs. 500/- were deposited with Punjab Motor Vehicle Department on 31.8.2013. In case, Op No. 1 would have deposited this amount with the Registration Authority within time and certificate of Registration would have been issued then Op No. 2 would have paid this amount. On account of default on the part of Op No. 1, Op No. 2 repudiated the claim for violation of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Op no. 1 is responsible for that, therefore, liability was fixed upon Op No. 1. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant/Op No. 1 was unable to convince how he is not responsible to pay this amount. He has not even challenged the amount so assessed by the District Forum in its order.
14. As per the order passed by the District Forum, Op No. 1 was required either to repair the vehicle or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 3,70,201/-. The vehicle was to be repaired within a period of one month. It is not known whether the vehicle has been repaired by Op No. 1 or not. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant/Op No. 1 has stated that they be allowed to repair the vehicle but that option was already given by the District Forum to the complainant and in the grounds of appeal, no such plea has been taken. Therefore, no plea against the grounds of appeal can be entertained. We are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the District Forum are correct and counsel for the appellant/Op No. 1 was unable to convince before us how the findings so recorded by First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 10 the District Forum are incorrect. So the findings so recorded by the District Forum are hereby affirmed.
15. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 3,50,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
17. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by appellant to respondent No. 1/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 4.3.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member March 10, 2016. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member First Appeal No. 457 of 2015 11