District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri P. K. Chakraborty - President
Shri J. Bhattacharya - Member
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 31/2014
M/s. Biswanath Rice Mill
Represented by-
Sri Murari Lal More
S/o Omkar Lal More
Vill.: Salash, PO & PS: Tapan
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur - …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. Legal Manager,
The Cholamandalam MS Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Head Office,
2nd Floor, Dare House, 2 N. S. C. Bose
Chennai - 600001
2. M/s. Newline Auto Track (P) Ltd.
Malda Auto Complex
Arati Ganguly Garden, Gabgachi, NH-34
Post: Malda, Pin -732103
3. Branch Manager,
Indus Ind Bank
Sukanta More (Krishna Bhaban)
Post: Malda, PS: English Bazar
Dist.: Malda, Pin- 732101
4. Sri Sujay Saha, S/o Shyamal Saha
Subhash Pally, Post & PS: Gangarampur,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………… ...Opposite Parties
For complainant ………… - Shri Biswarup Chatterjee, Ld. Adv. & - Shri Humayun Kabir, Ld. Adv
For OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 ……… - None
For OP No.3 ……… - Shri Sumit Kr. Mohanta, Ld. Adv.
Date of Filing : 15.07.2014
Date of Disposal : 16.01.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dated 16.01.2015
In brief, case of the complainant / petitioner is that it is the registered owner of the vehicle No. WB-61/9020 (Pick-up van). Complainant became owner of the said vehicle after purchasing the same by taking loan from the OP No.3 on hire purchase basis on a condition that it has to pay the loan amount by periodical instalments @ Rs. 24,540/- for each instalment. The vehicle in question met with an accident on last 25.6.2013. Due to such accident offending vehicle became badly damaged. Over such accident Balurghat PS Case No.612/2013 dt. 26.6.2013 u/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC was started against driver of the offending vehicle. It is the further case of the complainant / petitioner that the offending vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 at the material point of time. OP No.1 was informed by the complainant about the accident when OP No.1 instructed the complainant to hand over the vehicle in question to the OP No.2 for its repairing and also to survey damage of the vehicle. After repairing works of the pick-up van complainant paid a sum of Rs.66,000/- to the OP No.2 as expenses for repairing. It is the further case of the complainant that it spent a sum of Rs.8,500/- to carry the damage vehicle to the garage of the OP No.2. Thus, it spent a sum of Rs.74,500/- in total. OP No.1 is liable to pay such amount of Rs.74,500/- as the vehicle in question was insured with it at the material point of time. Accordingly, complainant claimed the said amount of Rs.74,500/- from the OP No.1, but the insurance company (OP No.1) in connivance with OP No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.38,000/- to the Bank (OP No.3) without any knowledge / consent of the claimant. Hence, complainant has filed the petition of complaint against the OPs praying for giving direction to the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.74,500/- as expenses for repairing of the damage vehicle and also for compensation.
Contd…P/3
OP No.3 has contested the present case by filing a written version inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in its petition of complaint. It is the main contention of this OP (so far it can be gathered from its written version) that the complainant is not at all a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act, 1986. It is admitted by this OP that the complainant purchased the offending vehicle after taking loan from it on hire purchase basis on a condition that the complainant has to repay the loan amount by periodical instalments @ Rs.24,500/- for each instalment. But the complainant is not paying such instalments regularly. At present this OP will get a sum of Rs.1,21,856/- as outstanding dues from the complainant. So, this OP prayed for dismissal of the present case.
Present case was heard on ex-parte against the OP Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
From the materials on record we have come to the following finding.
FINDING WITH REASONS
Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written version and the other materials on record. At first we will take decision as to whether the complainant is the consumer as per provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 or not. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of OP No.3 submitted before us that the present case must fail as the complainant is not at all a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act, 1986. According to him, complainant purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. So, it is not at all a consumer. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant did not support the above contention of the Ld. Counsel on behalf of OP No.3. According to him, there is nothing in the materials on record by which it can be said that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. Be that as it may, on perusal of the materials on record we opine that complainant is a consumer under OP No.1 as per provision of the C.P. Act.
Contd…P/4
Now we will consider as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the order as prayed for. It is admitted position that the complainant is the owner of the offending vehicle being numbered WB-61/9020, which was purchased by it on higher purchase basis after taking loan from the OP No.3 on a condition that the complainant has to repay the loan amount by periodical instalments @ Rs.24,500/- for each instalment. It is the contention of the complainant that the vehicle in question met with an accident on last 25.6.2013, when the said vehicle was insured with the OP No. 1. Due to such accident offending vehicle became badly damaged. As per instruction of OP No. 1, complainant handed over the damage vehicle to the OP No. 2 for its repairing. It is the further contention of the complainant that it paid a sum of Rs.66,000/- in full to the OP No. 2 as cost of repairing. It also spend a sum of Rs.8,500/- to carry the damage vehicle to the OP No. 2. Thus, complainant spent a sum of Rs.74,500/- in total. According to the complainant, OP No. 1 is liable to pay such amount Rs.74,500/- as at the material point of time offending vehicle was insured with it. Although, it claimed the said amount from the OP No.1, but OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.38,000/- out of Rs.74,500/- to the Bank OP No. 3 without its knowledge / consent. Complainant has filed xerox-copy of certain documents from which it is clearly seen that the complainant is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is further seen that the offending vehicle met with an accident on last 25.6.2013 and over such accident Balurghat PS Case No.612/2013 dt. 26.6.2013 u/s 279, 337 and 338 IPC was started against driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the OP No.1 at the material point of time. It is seen from the materials on record that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.66,000/- to the OP No.2 as cost for repairing of the damage vehicle. As per terms & conditions of the insurance policy complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.66,000/- from the OP No.1 as repairing charge of the offending vehicle and it is not entitled to get a sum of Rs.8,500/- which was spent to carry the
Contd…P/5
damage vehicle to the OP No.2. According to the complainant, it claimed the said amount of Rs.66,000/- from the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 deposited a sum of Rs.38,000/- out of Rs.66,000/- to the Bank (OP No.3) without its knowledge / consent. So, it was rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant that there is / was gross negligence / deficiency in rendering service on behalf of OP No.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand only) (Rs.66,000 – Rs.38,000) as cost for repairing of the offending vehicle and a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation.
Present case must fail against the OP Nos. 2, 3 & 4 as no relief has been claimed against them.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint is allowed on ex-parte against the OP No. 1. Complaint petition is dismissed on contest against the OP No.3. The same is also dismissed on ex-parte against the OP Nos. 2 & 4, but in the circumstances without any cost.
OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,000/- as cost for repairing of the offending vehicle along with interest @ Rs.3% p.a. upon the said amount from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation to the complainant M/s. Biswanath Rice Mill by issuing an account payee cheque in its name within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. OP No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as compensation by issuing another account payee cheque in the name of the complainant within aforesaid period, out of which the complainant shall deposit a sum of
Contd…P/6
Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only in the “ State Consumer Welfare Fund ” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) payable at P.N.B. Balurghat Branch, within 7 days from the date of receipt of cheques.
Direction is also given to the OP No.1 to deposit the said cheques to this Forum within the period as mentioned above.
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(P. K. Chakraborty)
President
We concur,
……Sd/-..…… ………Sd/-……..
(J. Bhattacharya) (S. Saha) Member Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
