State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dewars Garage Ltd. vs Tanbir Mujassam on 25 June, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/984/2016 ( Date of Filing : 05 Oct 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/09/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/211/2016 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Dewars Garage Ltd. (Authorised Maruti Dealer), 83/1, Topsia Road, Kolkata - 700 046, P.S. - Topsia. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Tanbir Mujassam 7/3, Abinash Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata - 700 046. 2. Universal Sampo Generally Insurance Co. Ltd. Block - A, Express Tower, 7th Floor, 42A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 017. 3. M/s. R.S. Service Centre (Maruti Authorised Service Station) 1/2, Mahendra Roy Lane, Kolkata - 700 046, P.S. - Topsia. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Soma Biswas, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Saikat Mali., Advocate Ms. Debjani Banerjee., Advocate Dated : 25 Jun 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is moved by the OP No. 1 of the complaint case, i.e., M/s Dewar's Garage Ltd.
Complainant's case, in short, is that, he purchased a Taxi from the OP No. 1. It is claimed that, acting on the assurance given by the OP no. 1 to arrange road permit for the said taxi within one month, Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to it in cash against which the OP No. 1 did not issue any money receipt. After completion of registration procedure, the OPs issued road tax, smart card etc. to the Complainant and also delivered the car to him. When he asked for the road permit, the OP No. 1 assured that the same would be available shortly and confirmed that they already applied for the same. Unfortunately, the said car met an accident on 01-01-2016 as a result of which the car got badly damaged. As the Insurance Company repudiated his claim citing absence of road permit to run the said taxi, blaming the OP No. 1 for it, this complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum.
By filing WV the OP No. 1 denied receiving any money from the Complainant to facilitate issuance of road permit in favour of the Complainant.
Decision with reasons At the time of hearing only the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 remained present. There were heard at length. We have also gone through the documents on record.
The Motor Vehicles Act strictly prohibits plying any commercial vehicle on road without necessary road permit. Since the subject vehicle violated such rule, the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the Complainant's claim.
The Respondent No. 1 although squarely blamed the Appellant for non-settlement of his claim, in absence of any cogent documentary proof, merely on the basis of his submission, it is impossible to independently ascertain the veracity of such claim.
That apart, in terms of Sec. 101 of the Evidence Act, it was obligatory on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the bona fide of his claim regarding payment of aforesaid sum to the Appellant, which he miserably failed to establish.
In the opinion of the Ld. District Forum, since the Respondent No. 1 paid other charges, he definitely paid the claimed amount to the Appellant. We afraid, there being no basis to derive at such conclusion, the Ld. District Forum ought to refrain from resorting to such unfounded surmises and conjecture.
In his own interest, the Respondent No. 1 ought to obtain due money receipts from the Appellant in respect of all kinds of payments that the former paid to the latter. There are hundreds or thousands of agencies available in the market who are doing similar job. Therefore, if the Appellant had any reservation in tendering requisite money receipt, the Respondent No. 1 could rope in some other agency. He had no such compulsion to get it done through the Appellant only. Therefore, if the Respondent No. 1 did not apply his mind and acted imprudently, the buck stops at his doorstep.
The justification as given by the Ld. District Forum behind allowing the complaint case is not sustainable in law. As such, we cannot endorse its decision.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent No. 1. The impugned order is hereby set aside. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER