Order-13.
Date-15/09/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he is an unemployed youth and availing a govt. scheme purchased a AC Taxi from O.P.-1 by taking bank loan at an amount of Rs.614240/-, insurance of Rs.26,339/-, registration charges Rs.8,655/- and incidental charges Rs.2,300/-. O.P.-1 promised to the complainant that road permit shall be handed over to and in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of purchase o that the complainant can ply the car on road as Taxi in terms of the permission already obtained from Govt. of W.B. Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata Region. The bank loan was also transferred tot eh bank A/c of the O.P.-1 to the tune of Rs.622590/-. The complainant paid the rest of the amount to O.P.-1 in terms of the quotation along with the amount of Rs.10,000/- by cash to the O.P.-1 for granting road permit in favour of the complainant before the delivery of the car to the complainant. But O.P.-1 did to issue any money receipt to and in favour of the complainant even after repeated requests made by the complainant to O.P.-1. The car was also insured by O.P.-1 in the name of the complainant to O.P.-2. The complainant visited the office of the O.P.-1 to get the road permit and O.P.-1 stated to the complainant that once the application has been made to the concerned authority for granting road permit, the complainant is nothing to worry about and the complainant can freely ply the car on road as AC Taxi. The complainant is a lay man and he believed upon the words of O.P.-1 on good faith. Unfortunately on 01/01/2016 the AC Taxi of the complainant bearing AC Taxi No. WB-05 / 1429 met with a road accident and as a result the subject Taxi was badly damaged for which it was sent to the service centre being O.P.-3 for repairing. The insurance of the AC Taxi was renewed on 20/10/2015 for a period on and from 20/10/2015 to 19/10/2016 but O.P.-1 failed to issue the road permit. O.P.-3 after making necessary repair of the said car claimed an amount of Rs.1,69,426/- to the complainant. But the complainant had no such resource / fiancé to get back the car from O.P.-3. O.P.-2 failed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that complainant did not possess any road permit at the relevant point of time. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the amount for road permit was deposited with Public Vehicle Department only on 19/01/2016 and the accident took place on 01/01/2016. O.P.-1 issued the road permit to the complainant on 17/03/2016. It is alleged that O.P.-2 has repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant and O.P.-1 is solely liable and responsible for not obtaining the road permit. Hence, this case.
O.P.-1 has contested the case in filing W.V. contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in fact and in law. It is denied that O.P.-1 promised to the complainant that the road permit shall be handed over and obtained in favour of the complainant positively within one month from the date of purchase so that the complainant can ply the car as Taxi. It is stated that this O.P. has no knowledge whether the subject Ac Taxi met a road accident on 01/01/2016 or it was sent to O.P.-3 for repairing. It is denied that O.P.-1 has received the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for consideration price on account of road permit of the subject AC Taxi. It is stated that the complainant insured the car through O.P.-1 and the policy has been lapsed before 21/10/2015 and as such O.P.-1 has no knowledge whether it has been further renewed or not. It is started that this O.P. never adopted any unfair trade practice. It is stated that this O.P. has no liability with respect to the road permit as no consideration amount was received by this O.P. It is also stated that the complainant did not have the valid or effective road permit for which his claim with his insurer was rejected.
O.P.-2 and 3 have not filed any W.V. However, Ld. Lawyers on behalf of O.P.-2 was present at the time of final hearing and also filed a WNA
Points for Decision
- Whether O.P.-1 put up a gesture of unfair trade practice ?
- Whether O.P.-1 has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
- Whether O.P.-2 has been justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record, namely photocopies of driving license in the name of the complainant, offer letter for meter taxi permit dated 09/07/2014 issued by regional transport authority, Kolkata region, order booking / commitment check list issued by O.P.-1, papers of bank loan, insurance policy certificate, road tax, registration certificate, estimate of service centre, permit fees, permit in respect of subject car dated 17/03/2016, repudiation letter of O.P.-2.
We find from materials on record that the accident took place on 01/01/2016 and it also appears that the insurance of the AC Taxi was further renewed on 20/10/2015 for a period on and from 20/10/2015 to 19/10/2016. So we find that the Ac Taxi was covered under a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident. We find that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the car was not having valid route permit as on the date of the accident. Route permit was, however, issued subsequently on 17/03/2016. It also appears that O.P.-1 handed over a receipt copy showing payment made to the public vehicle department for granting road permit on 19/01/2016. The grievance of the complainant is that he made a payment of Rs.10,000/- in cash for grant of route permit in favour of O.P.-1 at the time of purchase of the AC Taxi in terms of the quotation amount. It is however denied from the side of the O.P.-1 that the complainant paid any such amount. But we find that the ex showroom price of the said AC Taxi amounted to rs.614240/-, insurance of rs.26339/-, registration charges Rs.8655/- and incidental charges of rs.2300/- . So we can also presume that the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to O.P.-1 for grant of route permit at that time. We find that O.P.-1 paid the insurance amount and obtained insurance policy in favour of the complainant at the time of purchase of Ac Taxi. So we cannot disbelieve the version of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- by cash to O.P.-1 for grant of route permit. The complainant as it appears is an unemployed youth having no knowledge about the pros and cons in the matter of purchase of car and eventually he acted on the words and assurance of O.P.-1 that O.P.-1 would obtain route permit and handover the same within one month from the date of purchase of the Ac Taxi. But it was not obtained by O.P.-1. So, we are constrained to hold that O.P.-1 has been deficient in service.
We have nothing to say about the ground of repudiation. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by O.P.-2 as the car was not having valid route permit as on the date of accident. The complainant we think plied the car without any permit for the reason best known to him and at his own stake. Consequently, the cost of repair received no sanction either from the insurance company or by appointment of surveyor as to its veracity. So, we abstain from making any order, as to indemnification of the alleged repair cost. We think, however, need to be compensated for deficiency of service by O.P.-1.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against OP1 and dismissed against the other OPs.
OP1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that event OP1 will be liable to pay penal damage at the rate ofRs5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
