Sri Ashoke Kumar Pal, President.
The matrix of the case of the complainant in short is that the complainant purchased a Scooty (Model Yamaha Ray ZR) from the O.P. No. 1 on 30.07.2020 at a valuable consideration price of Rs. 70,860/- (Annexure – 1). The O.P. No. 1 charged Rs. 555/- for Yamaha Protection Plus Certificate (Annexure – B) for protection of the said vehicle under the protection plus by Policy No. 510809477. The vehicle was also insured with “Go Digit General Insurance Ltd.” which was valid from 04.08.2020 to 03.08.2021. On 19.10.2020 the said Scooty met with an accident and the complainant took the vehicle to the O.P. No. 1 but after verification of the damage of the vehicle the O.P. No. 1 assured the complainant that the same will be repaired at a cost of Rs. 1,500/-. But suddenly on 21.10.2020 the O.P. No. 1 called the complainant and requested to pay Rs. 10,000/- as repairing cost instead of Rs. 1,500/-. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices of South 24 Parganas. But the dispute could not be solved through the process of Mediation and hence this case.
O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case after filing W.V. contending inter-alia that the claims of the complainant is false and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
It was the specific case of the O.P. that the complainant purchased the Scooty at a valuable consideration price of Rs. 70,860/- on 30.07.2020 from O.P. No. 1 and subsequently after the Scooty met with a road traffic accident on 19.10.2020, the same was brought to their show-room and after repairing the damage the complainant was charged Rs. 8,640/- though the estimated cost of repair was Rs. 10,000/-. But the complainant did not receive the said Scooty after payment of the repairing cost of Rs. 8,640/-. The O.P. had valid insurance policy for the said vehicle but the complainant neither made any claim for the accidental damage to the insurance company. The insurance company was not even made a party to this case. The O.Ps. also denied the other material averments of the petition of complaint and prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
POINTS OF CONSIDERATION :
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Are the O.Ps. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS :
Point No. 1:
On perusal of the case record along with documents filed by the complainant it appears that the complainant purchased a two-wheeler (Model Yamaha Ray ZR) from the O.P. No. 1 on 30.07.2020 at a valuable consideration price of Rs. 70,860/- (Annexure – A) which the O.P. No. 1 admitted in the W.V. as well as in BNA. So, there is no dispute regarding purchase of the vehicle and payment of its price. As such, there is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As such point No. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.
Point No. 2:
It is admitted by both the parties that the said two-wheeler (Model Yamaha Ray ZR Scooty) met with a road traffic accident and the same was brought to the O.P. No. 1 to make good the damage. It is the specific case of the complainant that initially the estimated cost of repairing of damage was Rs. 1,500/-. Subsequently, the same was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- which the O.P. completely denied. We also do not find any documents to accept the version of the complainant that the estimated cost was initially given to him as Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore, we cannot accept the version of the complainant that the estimated cost was initially given to them by the O.P. No. 1 as Rs. 1,500/-. On the other hand the O.P. No. 1 after repairing of the damage charged only Rs. 8,640/- to the complainant which is lower than estimated cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant did not claim the amount from the Insurance Company nor Insurance Company was made as a party to this case for the reason best known to him despite having valid insurance policy for the said vehicle. In view of the same, the complainant is to bear the expenses of repairing cost to make good the damage of the said two-wheeler which is still lying with the O.P. No. 1 after repairing the damages. The complainant took the plea of Yamaha Protection Plus Certificate for which the O.P. No. 1 took additional charge of Rs. 555/- at the time of purchasing of the vehicle. But the fact remains that the said policy only stands for servicing of the vehicle and the accidental damage is not covered by the said policy which is only covered by the insurance policy. The fact remains that the complainant took the vehicle to the O.P. No. 1 for repairing the accidental damage which the O.P. No. 1 has done and the complainant was charged Rs. 8,640/- only for repairing the said damages. But as the complainant has not yet paid the same and did not take the delivery of the vehicle, the same is lying with the O.P. No. 1. Therefore, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.
As such, Point No. 2 is decided in favour of the O.Ps. and against the complainant.
Point No. 3:
Regarding this point, it is admitted that the complainant after purchasing the vehicle met with a road traffic accident and the vehicle was brought to the O.P. No. 1 for repairing the damage which was completely done by the O.P. No. 1 and charged the complainant Rs. 8,640/- as the cost of repair. The complainant has not yet paid the same and did not take delivery of the vehicle from the O.P. No. 1 after payment of the said repairing charge. As the complainant did not make any claim from the insurance company he is to bear the expenses for repairing the vehicle. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the relief in part as prayed for. So, the third point is also decided in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 but without cost.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable and directed to return the two-wheeler (Model Yamaha Ray ZR Scooty) to the complainant after payment of repairing charge amounting Rs. 8,640/- to the O.P. No. 1 by the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing this Order.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable and also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing this Order.
The complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after the expiry of 30 days in case the orders are not complied with by the O.Ps. within 30 days from the date of passing this Order.
Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
