Orissa

Nuapada

CC/4/2018

Abani Ranjan Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Axis Bank,Nuapada - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.K.Hota/B.B.Behera/J.C.Thaku

10 Jan 2020

ORDER

In the matter of a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding negligence and deficiency of service.

The factual matrix of the case is that :-

The complainant is an account holder of O.P. No.1 having Account No. 913010017057866.  On 26.09.2017, the complainant made an enquiry to have a four wheeler vehicle i.e. HYUNDAI CRETA to know about the cost and facilities provided by the company regarding Hyundai CRETA and accordingly talked over phone with the proprietor of Binod Hyundai, Bolangir (O.P. No.2) and after conversation over phone, O.P. No.2  send a PROFORMA INVOICE/QUOTATION through e-mail to the complainant on the same day and after sending the quotation through e-mail, O.P. No.2 told the complainant that he should deliver the said new vehicle (Home delivery) to him within seven days and as per the assurance of O.P. No.2 & 3, the complainant sent an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) as an advance/token money in favour of Binod Automobiles vide instrument No. 3949 on 26.09.2017 from the account of Rashmita Joshi, the wife of petitioner vide account ID No.- 913010017055187INR811.

Being an account holder of Axis Bank, Nuapada, the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 for availing vehicle loan and in response, O.P. No.1 agreed to sanction the vehicle loan in favour of the complainant and accordingly O.P. No.1 sent the loan approval letter in favour of Binod Automobiles on 28.09.2017 for the vehicle Model No. (CRETA 1.6SXPLUS CRDI) as per the car loan application of the complainant.  As per mentioned in the quotation that the total on road price of the vehicle is Rs.14,34,914/-  with registration and insurance at the time of delivery.  As per condition and assurance, O.P. No.2 & 3 failed to provide the said vehicle to the complainant on date fixed and thereafter on 08.10.2017, the complainant tried to telephone the proprietor of Binod Hyundai (O.P. No.3) who has not receive the telephone call nor replied anything as the loan amount has already been approved by the Bank (O.P. No.1) and without any option, the complainant had gone to Bolangir on 10.10.2017 to enquiry about the non-delivery of vehicle and on the very day O.P. No.2 again make assurance to be delivered the vehicle within 15.10.2017.   But O.P. No. 2 & 3 could not delivered the vehicle to the complainant within the extended period of defaulting and imperfecting their duty and service after getting loan approval order.   After the loan approval letter of the Bank, O.P. No.2 & 3 should delivered the vehicle to the complainant during the promissory period.  Without any option, the complainant sent a request letter on 16.10.2017, at 5.51 P.M. to deliver the vehicle as he has clearly mentioned in his e-mail regarding his harassment by the dealer named Binod Hyundai, Angul (O.P. No.3).   After a long gape of one month from 26.9.2017, O.P. No.3 through O.P. No.2 delivered (Home Delivery) the said vehicle to the complainant on 27.10.2017 without any documents though it is the mandatory provision as well as terms and conditions of the quotation provided by O.P. No.3 is cleared that the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and other supporting documents of the vehicle is mandatory at the time of delivery of the vehicle but they failed to comply the same during the time of delivery.  On the date of delivery of the vehicle i.e. on 27.10.2017, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,13,061.00 in favour of Binod Automobiles vide a Cheque No. 13206 through the Axis Bank.  As per quotation, an amount of Rs. 49,153/- has been deposited from the sanctioned loan amount of the complainant but an amount of Rs. 46,141/- has been deposited to the Insurance Company to be insured of vehicle.

The details financial transaction with respect to the vehicle including loan sanctioned amount advance payment and insurance as below as per Quotation provided by the O.P. No. 3.

Date	Amount	Through	From	To
26.9.2017	25,000/- (as an advance)	Axis Bank	A/c of the wife    of Petitioner	Binod Hyundai
27.10.2017	2,13,061/- (Down Payment	Axis Bank	A/c  of Petitioner	Binod Hyundai
	49,153/-	Axis Bank	A/c  of Petitioner	Insurance Company
	11,47,700/- Loan Amount)	Axis Bank	Loan A/c of Petitioner	Binod Hyundai
Total	14,34,914/-

 

          At the time of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant, the entire financial transaction was completed with the O.P. No. 2 & 3 as per terms and conditions of the quotation provided by the O.P. No. 3 but inspite of several telephone calls and repeated request to O.P. No. 3, he could not provide any documents of the said vehicle for which the complainant is unable to run his vehicle on the road.

          Thereafter on 23.11.2017, O.P. No. 3 talked over phone with complainant and demanded the payment of additional Rs.  45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) apart from the entire payment along with loan amount to provide the documents.

          Then again O.P. No. 2 & 3 repeatedly pressurized the complainant to deposit the said additional amount which is beyond the terms and conditions of the quotation.  Without any option, the complainant deposited the said amount i.e. Rs. 45,000/- on 27.11.2017 by way of Cheque No. 130219 through RTGS by O.P. No. 1 with an expectation that they shall be provide with the registration certificate and other relating documents by the O.P. No. 2 & 3.  But O.P. No. 2 & 3 did not provide the documents of the vehicle as well as they failed to refund the additional amount of Rs. 45,000/- as yet, which clearly reveals that they are cheating by way of taking additional money.

          Again on 04.01.2018, the complainant requested the O.P. No. 3 over phone but he did not respond the telephone call, then on 15.01.2018, the complainant requested through e-mail to O.P. No. 3 and a copy of the same send to O.P. No. 5 to provide the documents of the vehicle to the complainant but they failed to respond as yet.

          The cause of action arose on 07.10.2017 when the O.P. No. 2 & 3 failed to deliver the vehicle, on 27.10.2017 during the time of delivery of vehicle at Nuapada, by not providing the documents and on 27.11.2017 taking additional amount of Rs. 45,000/- by not providing the documents and on 04.01.2018 they could not receive the phone calls and lastly on 15.01.2018 request of the complainant by e-mail is not responded.

          Thereafter on 08.08.2018 at about 9.45 P.M. when the complainant along with one Bharat Bhusan Behera were coming to Nuapada by the said vehicle being driven by Bharat Bhusan Behera to attend a patient in District Headquarter Hospital, Nuapada on the road meet an accident while he was trying to save the life of a cow as a result the Car capsized and fully damaged which was reported to the Nuapada Police immediately vide S.D.E. No. 12 and on the very day Nuapada Police took the vehicle from the spot and kept inside the Police Station.

          Thereafter on 10.09.2018, the complainant sent the information to the insurance company i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (O.P. No. 6) through e-mail for claim of insurance and subsequently the company acknowledge vide its claim Registration No. 0820929878A and the insurance company appointed one surveyor and accordingly the company intimated the complainant on 11.08.2018.  Then the surveyor told the complainant over phone to shift the accident vehicle to the nearest Hyundai Dealer Points i.e. Shankar Hyundai, Raipur and accordingly on 12.08.2018 the complainant transport the damaged vehicle through the road side assistance to Shankar Hyundai at Raipur (C.G.) and the surveyor inspected the vehicle and intimate the complainant regarding the condition of vehicle, which is in total damaged condition due to the said accident.

          Then the complainant intimated the Sr. Manager of Insurance Company regarding subjudice the matter before this Forum and due to want of documents the complainant sent a letter on 17.08.2018 through e-mail to O.P. No. 5 described in details regarding the mischievous activities of O.P. No. 2 & 3 but O.P. No. 5 did not respond on it.

          Thereafter the company (O.P. No.6) intimated to the complainant to submit the original documents and the complainant submitted the insurance copy and driving license but the insurance company (O.P. No.6) failed to settle the claim as yet.

          Further the complainant requested the O.P. No.3 through e-mail on 22.09.2018 for his Registration Certificate Book but he claim again additional amount of Rs. 10,139/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred thirty nine) and basing on that the complainant sent his reply through e-mail on 28.09.2018.

          Thereafter the complainant received a letter from O.P. No.3 on 14.11.2018 and subsequently on 18.12.2018 he received an Advocate Notice from R.P. Pattnaik and the complainant sent the reply of the same.

          Further the complainant has filed an application on 18.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 before O.P. No. 1 for obtaining information and his claim but he has not taken any steps on it.

          Basing on all above complaint, the complainant mentally agonized and harassed due to negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties and as such the complainant claim relief’s as prayed for.

          The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claims as under :-

1)    Attested true copy of Quotation of the vehicle as (Annexure-1).

2)    Attested true copy of Bank transaction as (Annexure-2).

3)    Attested true copy of Loan approval letter of Axis Bank as (Annexure-3)

4)    Attested true copy of Request letter to Binod Hyundai by the complainant on 16.10.2017 as (Annexure-4).

5)    Attested true copy of Down payment of Rs. 2,13,061/- on 27.10.2017 as (Annexure-5).

6)    Attested true copy of Insurance certificate as (Annexure-6).

7)    Attested true copy of payment of Rs. 45,000/-  dt. 27.11.2017 as (Annexure-7).

8)    Attested true copy of request letter to Binod Hyundai by the complainant on 15.01.2018 as (Annexure-8).

9)    Attested true copy of S.D.E. No. 12  dt. 09.08.2018 as (Annexure-9).

10) Attested true copy of Acknowledge of claim registration No. 0820929878A dt. 010.08.2018 as (Annexure-10).

Being noticed, O.P. No. 1 has filed their written version through their Advocate and stated that the complainant had applied loan for purpose of a car and also submitted the quotation granted by O.P. No. 2 & 3 and loan was sanctioned and disbursed and sent to O.P. No. 2 & 3 through cheque for relevant amount as per their quotation without any delay by him and he had rendered his service to the complainant timely and sincerely.  But O.P. No. 1 has denied the rest of the allegations of complaint petition in this case.

          After received of the notice, O.P. No. 2 neither appeared nor filed any written version in this case so he set ex-parte.

          Advocate for O.P. No. 3 filed a written version and challenged the allegations of complaint petition in this case.

 O.P. No. 4 sent a written report through post and he has challenged the allegations of complaint petition in this case.

           O.P. No. 5 has filed their written version through their Advocate and denied the allegations of complaint petition in this case.

          After received the notice, O.P. No. 6 neither appeared nor filed any written version in this case.  So he set ex-parte.

          The Opposite parties are not filed any documents in this case.

          In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

I)             Whether the complainant is a consumer or not  ?

II)           Whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law  ?

III)          Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and there is cause of action  ?

IV)         Whether there is any negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties  ?

V)           To what relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to  ?     

          Issue No. I to IV. :-     

Since, the issues are very much linked with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.

           On perusal of case record as well as the documents of  complainant, it is found that the complainant is an account holder of O.P. No. 1 bearing Account No. 913010017057866.  On 26.09.2017 the complainant talked over phone with proprietor of O.P. No. 2 to know about the cost and facilities of four wheeler vehicle i.e. Hyundai CRETA and after conversation over phone, O.P. No. 2 send a PROFORMA/INVOICE/ QUOTATION  through e-mail to the complainant on the same day and told that he should deliver the said new vehicle (Home delivery) to him within seven days and as per the assurance of O.P. No.  2 & 3, the complainant sent an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) as an advance/ token money in favour of Binod Automobiles vide Instrument No. 3949 on 26.09.2017 from the account of Rashmita Joshi, the wife of complainant vide Account ID No. 913010017055187 INR 811.

          In fact, the complainant requested the O.P. No. 1 for availing vehicle loan in his favour and accordingly O.P. No. 1 agreed to sanction the vehicle loan in favour of complainant and thereafter O.P. No. 1 sent a loan approval letter in favour of Binod Automobiles on 28.09.2017 for the vehicle model No. (CRETA 1.6 SXPLUS CRDI).  As per the quotation the total on road price of the vehicle is Rs. 14,34,914.00 with Registration and Insurance at the time of delivery.  But as per their condition and assurance, O.P. No. 2 & 3 failed to provide the said vehicle to the complainant on date fixed and thereafter on 08.10.2017the complainant tried to telephone the proprietor of Binod Hyundai (O.P. No. 3) who did not receive the telephone call nor replied anything as the loan amount approved by O.P. No. 1.  Without any option, the complainant had gone to Bolangir on 10.10.2017 to enquiry about the non-delivery of vehicle and on the very day O.P. No. 2 again gave an assurance to be delivered the vehicle within 15.10.2017.  Still then O.P. No. 2 & 3 failed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant.  In fact after getting loan approval order from Bank (O.P. No.1), O.P. No. 2 & 3 should delivered the vehicle to the complainant during the promissory period.        

          Without any option, the complainant sent a request letter on 16.10.2017 at 5.51 P.M. to deliver the vehicle and he has also mentioned in his e-mail regarding his harassment by the Dealer named Binod Hyundai, Angul (O.P. No.3).

          In another factual aspect is that after a long gape of one month from 26.09.2017, O.P. No. 3 through O.P. No. 2 delivered (Home delivery) the said vehicle to the complainant on 27.10.2017 without any documents though it is the mandatory provision as well as terms and conditions of the quotation provided by O.P. No. 3 is cleared that the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and other supporting documents of the vehicle is mandatory at the time of delivery of the vehicle but they failed to comply the same during the time of delivery.

          Further it is seen that on the date of delivery of the said vehicle i.e. on 27.10.2017, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,13,061.00 (Rupees two lakh thirteen thousand sixty one) in favour of Binod Automobile vide Cheque No. 13206 through Axis Bank (O.P. No. 1).

          In another point is that as per the quotation an amount of Rs.49,153/- (Rupees forty nine thousand one hundred fifty three) has been debited from the sanctioned loan amount of the complainant for the purpose of insurance of the said vehicle, but it is seen that an amount of Rs. 46,141/- (Rupees forty six thousand one hundred forty one) has been deposited to the insurance company.

          In another factual aspect is that at the time of delivery of the said vehicle to the complainant, the entire financial transaction was completed with the O.P. No. 2 & 3 as per the term and condition of the quotation provided by the O.P. No. 3 but still then they failed to provide the documents of the said vehicle for which the complainant is unable to run his vehicle on the road and he is facing more hardship on it.

           Further it is seen that, on 23.11.2017, O.P. No. 3 demanded an additional amount of Rs. 45,000/- from complainant repeatedly which is beyond the terms and conditions of the quotation.  Again after repeated pressurized by O.P. No. 2 & 3, the complainant deposited the said amount i.e. Rs. 45,000/- on 27.11.2017 by way of cheque through RTGS by O.P. No. 1 with an expectation for documents of the said vehicle from O.P. No. 2 & 3  but it in vain and they failed to refund the said additional amount and documents to the complainant for which the complainant again on 04.01.2018 requested the O.P. No. 3 over phone but he did not respond on it and thereafter on 15.01.2018 the complainant requested through e-mail to O.P. No. 3  to provide the documents to him but they did not heed on it as yet which is squarely absurd by them.

          Lastly again, the complainant requested the O.P. No. 3 through e-mail on 22.09.2018 for his R.C. Book, but it is surprise that again he had claim an amount of Rs. 10,139/- and on protest the said illegal, the complainant sent his reply through e-mail on 28.09.2018 and again the complainant received a letter from O.P. No. 3 on 14.11.2018 and thereafter on 18.12.2018 he received an Advocate Notice and basing on that he sent reply of the same but O.P. No. 3 failed to provide the documents to the complainant as yet.

          In another crux is that on 08.08.2018 at about 9.45 P.M. when the complainant along with his friend were coming to Nuapada by the said vehicle to attend a patient in District Headquarter Hospital Nuapada in road they meet an accident and as a result the car capsized and fully damaged which was reported in Nuapada Police vide S.D.E. No. 12 and on the very day Police took the vehicle from the spot and kept inside the Police Station.  Basing on that, the complainant sent the information on 10.09.2018 to the insurance company i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited (O.P. No. 6) through e-mail for claim of insurance and the company acknowledged vide its claim Registration No. 0820929878A and the insurance company appointed one surveyor with intimation to the complainant on 11.08.2018.  As per the advice of the surveyor over phone, the complainant transported the said damaged vehicle through road side to the nearest Hyundai dealer Point i.e. Shankar Hyundai Raipur (C.G.) on 12.08.2018 and the surveyor inspected the vehicle and intimated the complainant regarding over all damaged of the vehicle due to the said accident.

          Further it is seen that the complainant intimated the Senior Manager of Insurance Company as the matter is subjudice before this Forum and due to want of documents the complainant sent a letter on 17.08.2018 through e-mail to O.P. No. 5 regarding mischievous activities of O.P. No. 2 & 3 but O.P. No. 5 did not heed on it.

          In another aspect is that, O.P. No. 6 intimated the complainant to submit the original documents and basing on that the complainant submitted the insurance copy and Driving license but O.P. No. 6 failed to settle the claim as yet.

          In such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.

          As per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2 (7)(ii) explain consumer means any person “who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than commercial purpose’”.  So the status of consumer cannot be deniable and thereby the maintainability.

          So far as the point of jurisdiction, it is seen that O.P. No. 2 & 3 are doing their business in this locality  and earned benefit from their customers.

          As per the new amendment of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 34 (2) (d) the complainant resides or personally works  for gain.

          Here, we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Neeraj Munjal and others  vrs.   Atul Grover (minor) and others, 2005. (3)CLT-30 of the Judgement held that the Court could not deprive the parties from a remedy, which is otherwise available to them; in law.  It has been further held that a Court of law has to jurisdiction to direct a matter to be governed by one statute when provision of other statute are available”.  

          So, we are of considered opinion that, this Forum has wide jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and the complainant has cause of action.

          In written version of O.P. No.3, he has admitted that the Proforma/invoice/quotation of our Company has been sent to the complainant through e-mail for a new Four Wheeler Vehicle i.e. Hyundai Creta on 26.09.2017 to know about the cost of facilities provided by the company and accordingly he has received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) on the same day as a token money as advanced vide instrument No. 3949 sent by the complainant through Axis Bank, Nuapada (O.P. No.1).

          Further O.P. No.3 has admitted that O.P. No.2 has received the e-mail of loan approval order of the Axis Bank, Nuapada and in loan approval letter it is mentioned that vehicle cost on the road is Rs. 13,04,020/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs four thousand twenty) of Creta 1.6 SXPLUS CRDI and accordingly O.P. No.3 engaged a driver and delivered the vehicle to the complainant (Home delivery) at Nuapada on 27.10.2017 and on the very day he received on sum of Rs. 2.13,061/- (Rupees two lakh thirteen thousand sixty one)  through Axis Bank, Nuapada (O.P. No.1) and also he has admitted that the insurance amount has been deposited in the name of insurance company for the vehicles and the amount of Rs. 11,47,700/- (Rupees eleven lakhs forty seven thousand seven hundred) (Loan amount) Rs. 2,13,061/- down payment and Rs. 25,000/- Rupees twenty five thousand) in advance is credited in the account of O.P. No.3.  Also O.P. No.3 has admitted that the Registration Certificate and Insurance of the Vehicle is mandatory at the time of delivery of the vehicles as reflected in Annexure-1.

          Further O.P. No.3 has stated that he has sent a letter through e-mail on 22.09.2018 to the complainant as outstanding amount of Rs.10,139/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred thirty nine) towards extra road tax and again on 14.11.2018 and 18.12.2018 for payment of the said outstanding and also again he sent an Advocate Notice for the same but the complainant failed to deposit the same and as such O.P. No.3 is unable to provide certain documents of the said vehicle to the complainant as yet.

          In another factual aspect is that as per Annexure-1 (Invoice/ Quotation) issued by O.P. No.3, the complainant through O.P. No.1 has complied the same but O.P. No.3 failed to deliver the said vehicle in time and basing on that the complainant repeated request through telephone then the O.P. No.3 delivered (Home delivery) the said vehicle to the complainant after one month without any documents though he has admitted that the documents are mandatory at the time of delivery of the vehicles as per Annexure-1.

          Further it is seen that, an excess amount of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) has already taken by O.P. No.2 & 3 on 27.11.2017 and further demand of Rs. 10,139/- (Rupees ten thousand one hundred thirty nine) from the complainant is vague, baseless, illegal and arbitrary.

          So it is clear crystal that O.P. No.2& 3 are playing dilatory tactics to extract the money illegally from complainant with an intention to linger the documents and as such O.P. No.2 & 3 are liable in this case.

          In another factual aspect is that O.P. No.1 has sincerely performed his duty and as such he is not liable in this case.  O.P. No.4 is not liable in this case as there is no allegation against him. 

          Now we are landing and discussed on the plea of O.P. No.5.

          In fact, O.P. No.5 is the manufacturer of Hyundai cars and therefore, its liability is limited to the extent of performance of the Car and extends to its warranty obligations only.  Unless there is any manufacturing defect which has been proved beyond doubt by an expert, the claim against him is not tenable.  The O.P. operates with all their dealers on a principal-to-principal  basis and errors/omissions, if any at the time of retailing of the Car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.  The cars are purchased by the concerned dealers, from O.P. No.5 against payments and thereafter the purchased Cars are sold by the dealers to the customers under sale invoice.

          Here, the “title of the Hyundai Vehicle” passes on to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier.

          The clause-1 of the Dealership Agreement, entered between the O.P. No.5 and its dealers, as under :-

          “The relationship between HMIL and the Dealer shall be on principal-to-principal basis.  Therefore, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authorizing the Dealer to act or otherwise represent itself as agent of HMIL”

          Further it is seen that O.P. No.5 is not the Principal and its dealers are not the Agents of him.  Also there is no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P. No.5.

          Here, there is no such any acknowledgment or any e-mail to the effect that the complainant had complained in this case before O.P. No. 5.  So it is treated that the complainant never complain before O.P. No. 5 on it.

          Supporting to their plea, O.P. No.5 has quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported as (II) (1994) CPJ 21 (SC) and II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC) are applicable in this case.

          So in our view, there is no any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.5 and as such O.P. No.5 is not liable in this case.

          Further it is seen that O.P. No.6 has failed to appear in this case though he has received notice from this Commission/Forum.  Here, Law is well settled that unless a pleading is challenged by either party, it amongst to admission.  So it is treated that O.P. No.6 did not respond the grievance of complainant as well as he has failed to settle the claim of complainant as yet and as such O.P. No.6 is liable in this case.

          In another factual aspect is that the insurance contract of utmost good faith and the insurerd person takes the insurance policy by keeping faith on the company.  But, his hopes and dreams shattered by the attitude of insurer when the issue of claim arises.  The Insurance Company find several ways how to repudiate the claim even it is genuine one and harass the claimant and make him to run from pillar to post.  It is just unfair and unacceptable.

          Hear the Consumer Protection Act is social legislation and there is need to strike down such practices and need to give proper redressal to the consumers.

          In fact, the insurance company should be magnanimous enough generous to award the claims at single window, without any hassle and with full Co-operation.

          So, from the perusal of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 applied to all type of goods, and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid, or promised.  Section 1 (iv) of C.P. Act, 2019 is of wide connotation.

          Here, we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES Vrs.   BALBIR SINGH, that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken in to consideration while compensating him in the loss of injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.

          In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the C.P. Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.

          Advocate  for the  complainant has filed a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta  .. Vrs .. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011 which is applicable in this case.

          Perused the documents of complainant and basing on that we found that the case of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.

          In the above case, the Advocate for complainant as well as the Advocate for O.P. No.1, 3 & 5 have argued in support of their claim.

          Further it is seen that, there is no any negligence or deficiency in service from the side of O.P. No.1, 4 & 5 and as such they are not liable in this case.

          Here, we assessed that the complainant is consumer of O.P. No. 2,3 & 6 and it is the duty of O.P. No. 2, 3 & 6  to provide proper service and proper information to the complainant.  But O.P. No.2 , 3 & 6 have failed to do the same in this case.

          Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency of service by the O.P. No.2, 3 & 6 as not properly provide service to the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss, harassment and mental agony due to negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the O.P. No. 2, 3 & 6 .

          So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. No. 2, 3 & 6.  Thus, O.P. No. 2, 3 & 6 are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Issue No. V.

          It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case.  Hence, order.

                                      O R D E R.

          In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 39 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as below :-

1)    We direct the O.P. No. 2 & 3 to provide the original documents of Registration Certificate with other relevant documents of the vehicle of Hyundai Creta 1.6 CRDI SX PLUS  Car bearing Engine No. D4FBHM450740 and Chasis No.MALC381ULHM-326372 to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

 

2)    We further direct the O.P. No. 2 & 3 to refund the excess amount of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) with interest @ 12% (twelve) percent per annum on the excess amount to the complainant from 27.11.2017 till payment within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

 

3)    We further direct the O.P. No. 2 & 3 to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and further pay as Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

 

4)    We further direct the O.P. No.6 to pay Rs. 12,38,819.00 (Rupees twelve lakhs thirty eight thousand eight hundred nineteen) to the complainant as insured declared value of the vehicle with interest @ 12% (twelve) percent per annum on the insured declared value of the vehicle from 08.08.2018 till payment within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

 

5)    We further direct the Opposite Party No.6 to pay  Rs. 10,000/-     ( Rupees Ten thousand ) only to the complainant as compensation  towards  mental agony  and harassment  and further pay as Rs.5,000/-( Rupees Five thousand) only  towards  litigation  cost wihtin 30( thirty)  days from the date of order.

 

6)    Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take proper steps as per process of law.

 

Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the  10th     day of January 2020.