DATE OF FILING : 26/11/2014.
DATE OF S/R : 18.03.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30.07.2015.
Ram Navami Singh,
son of Sri Sukhram Singh,
of 45/1, Bharpara Road, P.S. Shibpur, Shalimar, B. Garden,
Howrah 711103. …..………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
1. Amit Motor Cycles ( P ) Ltd.,
103/23, Foresore Road, Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711102.
And
506/1, G.T. Road ( South ),
Howrah 7111 01.
2. The ICICI Lombard,
Motor Insurance A.P.J. House,
15, Park Street ( 7th floor ),
Kolkata 16.
3. Hero Motor ( P ) Ltd.,
3F, Neelamber Building,
28B, Shakespears Sarani,
Kolkata 700017 ( W.B. ).…………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, Ram Navami Singh , by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay the cost of Rs. 40,000/- as travelling expenses, Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one motor cycle bearing No. WB 12 AF 0419, duly manufactured by O.P.3 from O.P.1. His vehicle met with an accident on 16-07-2014. And that was insured with O.P.2. On being instructed by O.P.2, that vehicle was brought to O.P.1 for necessary repairing job as the vehicle was heavily damaged. But that repairing was done by the O.P.1 only in the month of November 2014. And for such inordinate delay, complainant had to move for his business purpose by incurring taxi fare which came to Rs. 40,000/- in total. So alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
- Notices were served upon O.P.s. All of them appeared and filed written version separately. So, the case was heard on contest.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
We have carefully gone through the separate written version filed by different o.ps. along with the Annexures and noted their contents. O.P.2, being the Insurance company, in its W/V has stated vide para 8 that as they received the actual invoice dt. 04-12-2014 from O.P.1 showing the details of repairing cost of the vehicle in question, they allowed the claim of Rs. 25,824/- immediately. And there was no delay in doing the same. O.P.1 in its W/V dt. 01-04-2015 vide para 3 has stated that the spare parts were to be supplied by the manufacturer, i.e, O.P.3 for completing the repairing job. The vehicle was brought to their workshop on 17-07-2014 vide annexure dt. 17-07-2014, i.e, one Quick Service JOB CARD. Thereafter they placed the order with O.P.3, being the manufacturer, for supply of required spare parts on 16-08-2014. At this juncture, the delay occurred. Because O.P.1 received the parts on 11-11-14 and the vehicle was made ready for delivery by 13-11-14. Complainant was informed to collect his vehicle from O.P.1, but without doing so complainant filed this instant petition on 26-11-14 ultimately on 13-03-2015, O.P.1 sent a Lawyers notice to the complainant to take back his vehicle. O.P.3 in its W/V vide para 3 has admitted that o.p. no. 1 placed an order for supply of major spare parts for the vehicle in question on 16.8.2014, which were dispatched by o.p. no. 3 from their manufacturing plant on 07.11.2014 vide Annexure dated 07.11.2014 and complainant’s vehicle was made ready for delivery since 19.11.2014. Once o.p. no. 1 has stated that the vehicle was ready for delivery by 13.11.2014 again o.p. no. 3 has stated that the vehicle was ready for delivery on or after 19.11.2014. Definitely there is a miscommunication with respect to the date when the vehicle was made ready for delivery. Be that as it may, it is a big question that why o.p. no. 1 placed the order with o.p. no. 3 for supply of major parts after one month from the date of accident, when it is fact that the vehicle was taken to o.p. no. 1 by the complainant immediately on the next date i.e., 17.7.2014. And o.p. no. 1 placed the order with o.p. no. 3 on 16.8.2014. And in spite of being manufacturer of the vehicle, o.p. no. 3 took long two and half months to deliver the spare parts of a two wheeler. When complainant sent lawyer’s notice dated 03.11.2014, only after that o.p. no. 3 sent the required spare parts on 07.11.2014 vide Annexure. Is it a prompt post sale service given by both the o.ps. i.e., o.p. nos. 1 & 3 ? It cannot be. We all know that a two wheeler is a very useful vehicle for doing day to day work. Due to such inordinate delay on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 3, complainant has definitely suffered physically as well as financially. Accordingly we are of the candid opinion that this is fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 607 of 2014 ( HDF 607 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest against o.p. nos. 1 & 3 with costs and dismissed on contest against the O.P. no. 2 without costs.
That o.p. nos. 1 & 3 be jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing 9% p.a. interest shall be imposed on the total decreetal amount of Rs. 12,000/- till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
