In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/133/2018.
Date of filing: 27/08/2018. Date of Final Order: 13/09/2024.
NARESH MAΝΝΑ
S/O LATE BASANTA MANNA
RESIDING AT VILL.-KAMDEBPUR,
P.S.-POLBA, DIST.-HOOGHLY. PIN-712102. …complainant
vs -
- HDFC FRGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
AT.-D-30, 3RD FLOOR, EASTERN BUISNESS,
DISTRICT (MAGNET MAL) LBS MARG,
BHANDUP (WEST), MUMBAI-40028.
- L. T. FINANCE LIMITED,
BURDWAN (FINANCE COMPANY), 2ND FLOOR,
SEWA'S LAXMIPUR MATH, G. T. ROAD,
BURDWAN, W.S. PIN-713101.
- SAKETS MOTORS (ESCORTS),
SHOWROOM AT HALDER MARKET,
OPP. KAKALI CINEMATALA, PANDUA,
G.T. ROAD, P.O. & P.S.- PANDUA,
DIST.-HOOGHLY, PIN-712149.
- THE POST MASTER,
PANDUA POST OFFICE,
P.O. & P.S.-PANDUA, DIST.-HOOGHLY, PIN-712149.
- R.T.O., HOOGHLY
P.O. & P.S.- CHINSURAH, DIST.-HOOGHLY, PIN-712101.
………OPPOSITE PARIES
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that the complainant innocently purchased a Tractor namely POWER TRAC 4456, Maker's name ESCORTS LIMITED on 20/10/2014 which has been duly registered at HOOGHLY R.T.O. and thereafter put a Registration NO. WB 15C 5454 and the opposite party no. 1, Insurance Co. gave the insurance certificate regarding the Tractor bearing No. WB 15-0001 and the policy No. 2316201590802100000 dated 13/12/2016 instead of the above said original Registration No. WB 15C 5454 and the complainant several times made contact with the O.P No. 1 and 2 & 3 to correct the wrong posting of the Registration No. of the above stated Tractor Registration No. but they remain silent and the complainant could not able to collect the fitness certificate (CF) before the Hooghly R.T.O. in time due to wrong posting of Regn. No. WB 15-0001 instead of WB- 15C 5454. Furthermore, a rough calculation of penalty is more than 18,000/- till today and there is no negligence or latches on the part of the complainant. Moreover, your complainant suffers mentally agony and financial loss. For that your complainant would not be able to run the said Tractor on the Road due to non getting of Fitness Certificate from the R.T.O. Hooghly.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to clear the disputes so that the complainant can get the C.F. certificate from the RTO, Hooghly and directing the op no. 4 to state why he stated the Regd. Letters stated above “LEFT” and directing all the ops to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- for penalty loss and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental harassment and to pay a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as litigation cost and to stop EMI Loan amount.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No. 1 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the Complainant never approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for change in the registration number of vehicle till date. It is to be noted that Opposite Party No.1 is not privy to the communication between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 & 3. As far as insurance policy of Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, Opposite Party No.1 had not received any document/ communication pertaining to change in the registration number further the Opposite Party No.1 had not received legal notice/s dated 29/06/2018 and 19/07/2018 and the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for any alleged indirect and/or consequential losses suffered by the Complainant. Since OPs were not informed about the rectification in the registration number by the Complainant the policy was not rectified. Had Complainant informed directly to the Company about the change in registration number, the same would have been done as per the internal process of Opposite Party No.1. So, the instant petition be dismissed in limine as not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen against Opposite Party No. 1.
The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that The opposite party company is a non-banking financial Company and is engaged in the business of providing financial assistance to the intending borrowers. In November, 2014, the complainant approached the opposite party company seeking for financial assistance for purchasing of a Tractor and represented that he would duly repay the same. Believing the said representation, the opposite party company under a Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 24.11.2014, financed a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- in favour of the complainant on the following terms and conditions:
i) The amount would be repaid in 16 quarterly installments @ Rs. 42,720/- each commencing from 10.04.2015.
ii) The vehicle would remain hypothecated till realization of the entire dues under the agreement.
iii) In case of default the lender would be entitled to take appropriate steps including taking possession of the vehicle in terms of the agreement.
iv) Any dispute arising out of the said agreement would be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Lender.
The opposite party company further financed a sum of Rs.39.104/- towards insurance of the vehicle of the said tractor. The said amount was also repayable in 16 quarterly installments @ Rs.2444/-. The Complainant availed and utilised the aforesaid loan by purchasing the Tractor bearing Engine No. E3272223, Chassis No. T053245997. It is significant to mention here that the choice of the dealer was made by the complainant and the opposite party company had no role to play in.
The complainant being desirous of purchasing of a tractor, approached the opposite party company for providing finance and after understanding the terms and conditions, availed the financial assistance. The opposite party company is not the authority either for issuance of a registration certificate or insurance policy and as such is not concern with the issues raised by the complainant and the opposite party company is mere financier and has no authority with regard to issuance of registration certificate or correction thereof. It is the dealer, who initially provides the vehicle along with the registration number. As such, the opposite party company in no manner can be held liable for wrong recording of registration number of the vehicle in any of the documents. It is further submitted that initially the vehicle was insured with L & T General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thereafter, the complainant chose to insure the vehicle with the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party company in no manner is connected with the same and as such, the opposite party company cannot be held responsible for wrong recording of registration number in the policy document. So, the instant case should be dismissed.
The opposite party No. 4 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that O.P. No.1 is not under the jurisdiction of North Hooghly Division and an such this O.P. is not proper party in this case, Further the complainant has not mentioned the number of the Articles sent and the name of the office from where they were booked, it is not possible to submit the Disposal report as to why the articles were returned to the complainant with remarks "Left" and there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.4 in respect of this case, has not averred anything against this O.P. is also not a necessary party. So, the case filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The opposite party No. 5 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that vehicle bearing registration No. WB 15 C5454 won registered in the name of the complainant on 20/01/2015. As per VAHA 4 data base, it has also been found that the complainant submitted an application for renewal of Certificate of Fitness of the vehicle in question on 18-01-2018 without making payment of prescribed fees and fines, as applicable in terms of M.V. Act, Rules and Notification made there under. Now this authority can only be able to proceed for the process for issuance of certificate of Fitness of the vehicle after payment of required fees and fines, as admissible, besides production of all valid documents including insurance. So, the case be dismissed with costs.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and the answering opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocates of the complainant and the answering opposite parties heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Mankundu, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. It is the settled principle of law that failure of the Insurance Company to comply with the contractual obligation to release claim amount in deficiency in service. This legal principle has been laid down by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi and it is reported in 2022 (2) CPR 13 (Del).
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that the complainant purchased the above noted tractor from OP-3 and the said tractor was / is under Insurance coverage of Op-1 Insurance Company and in respect of the said tractor R.T.O, Hooghly put a registration no. WB 15C 5454 but instead of the above noted original registration No. the OP-1,2 & 3 incorporated one wrong registration No. WB 15-0001. It is also revealed that due to insert of wrong registration no. the complainant has been suffering financial loss and he has also not able to run the said tractor on the road and also failed to obtain fitness certificate from R.T.O , Hooghly. Over this issue the Ops have adopted the plea that they have no responsibility or liability for changing the registration no. and the complainant has never communicated for correction of the registration no. and OP-1 has also not received any document from the complainant. It is also the point of contention that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op-1,2 & 3.
After going through the material of this case record it is revealed that the complainant has practically no claim against OP-4&5 and for that reason this District Commission is of the view that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the OP-4&5 and for that reason this case is liable to be dismissed against OP-4&5. However, the evidence on record is going to depict that the Op-1,2&3 cannot escape from their liability of rectification of the registration no. in respect of above noted tractor as because the complainant has purchased the said tractor from OP-3 and the said tractor is under the Insurance coverage of OP-1&2.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved her case in respect of all the points of consideration adopted in this case and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case in respect of all the points of consideration against OP No.-1 to 3.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 133 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part against O.P no.1 to 3 and it is dismissed against O.P no.4 & 5.
OP-1&3 are directed to rectify the error in respect of the registration no. of the said tractor and also to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this judgment / final order. Otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute this award as per law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
