State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rahaman Ali S/O Lat. Asgar Ali vs Carnation Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on 27 March, 2018
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 313/2017 Rehman Ali s/o Late Asgar Ali r/o House No. 40-4 C Jamunapuri, Murlipura Scheme,Jaipur. Vs. Carnation Auto India Pvt,Ltd. Br. Plot No. B 121 Road No. 9, Vishvakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. & ors. Date of Order 27.3.2018 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for the appellant Mr.Lokesh Sharma counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 1st dated 15.2.2017 whereby the 2 original complaint is dismissed.
The contention of the appellant is that the vehicle is still lying with respondent no. 1 hence, he be directed to return the vehicle after due repairs.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that inspite of the reminders the complainant appellant gave no instruction for the repairs and he is ready to give the possession of the vehicle.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
The appellant submitted the complaint with the contention that the vehicle met with an accident on 9.9.2012 and claim has not been passed by the insurance company and further more the respondent no.1 has not repaired the vehicle.
The Forum below has held that on the day of the accident the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle and so also the insurance policy was not in his name 3 and in view of the above the claim against the insurance company was rightly dismissed.
In this appeal the contention of the appellant is that respondent no.1 be directed to repair the vehicle and handover to him. It is not in dispute that the vehicle is lying with respondent no.1 but it is amply clear that in anticipation of the insurance claim the vehicle was handed over to the respondent no.1 and now the insurance claim has not been allowed to the appellant. Ex. R 1, R 3, R 4 number of reminders were sent to the appellant to advise further course of action about the lying vehicle but the appellant never bothered to reply these letters. He simply sent a legal notice that service be provided to him but when the appellant has not instructed the respondent no.1 for the repairs of the vehicle and further no amount has been paid, the respondent no.1 could not be held deficient and the Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.
(Nisha Gupta) President nm