Date of filing : 05-05-2008 Date of order : 01-10-2009 N THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 59/08 Dated this, the 1st day of October 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER K.M.Mohammad Sali, Pooveliparambil House, Po.Pettikundu, Via. Cheruvathur. } Complainant (Adv. Purushothaman, Hosdurg) 1. Manager, Indus Motors, Indus House, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt. } Opposite parties 2. Divakaran, Sales Executive, Indus Motors, Indus House, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad. (Adv. K. Rajeevan, Hosdurg) 3. Radhakrishnan, R.No. 202, Alankar Tourist Home, Kottachery, Po.Kanhangad. (Adv. T.K.Rajan, Kasaragod) 4. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, 3rd floor, High Lane Plaza, M.G.Road, Kasaragod. 671 121. (Adv. M.Balagopalan, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Complainant avers, That he is the RC owner of the Maruti Omni bearing Reg.No.KL-60/236. The vehicle was purchased on 14-07-06 through opposite party No.1 who is the dealer of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.2 is the sales executive of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is an auto consultant who is doing the documentation works for the registration of vehicles. Opposite parties 2 & 3 have done all the procedures for registration of his new vehicle. The complainant duly insured his vehicle with opposite party No.4. The complainant intended to take All India Permit to his vehicle to ply it as taxi, engaged opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2. They received Rs.7000/- from the complainant as service charge and fee for the All India Permit. The opposite party No.2 & 3 assured that they will send all the papers to State Transport Authority and for that purpose obtained signatures in several documents. 2. The vehicle met with an accident on 21-07-07. It was taken to 1st opposite party for necessary repair work. Since the vehicle was having the NAT MAR policy complainant also entrusted all the documents required for claiming the insurance policy benefits. But opposite party No.4 repudiated the claim for violation of policy conditions stating that on the date of accident there was no valid permit Thereafter opposite party No.1 issued a registered lawyer notice to the complainant asking him to take the vehicle from the workshop after paying their bill Rs.92,872/- to which he sent a reply on 13-02-08. 3. According to complainant the vehicle ought to have been repaired on nearly cash loss basis since the policy of insurance of the vehicle was taken through opposite party No.1 by way of NATMAR policy. As per NATMAR policy in case of any accidental loss the vehicle would be repaired at any Maruti Workshop on nearly cash less basis. The insured has to bear just the depreciation cost of components and compulsory deduction only and the insurance claim amount has to be settled by the dealer with insurer. 4. Later complainant received back the application for tourist taxi permit from State Transport Authority. It was returned for want of required fee of Rs.2200/-. 5. According to complainant all the problems with regard to the claim of the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 is sending the application for authorization and permit in time. 6. Opposite party No.1 also did not give the details of repairs and the amount incurred for repair. They also caused undue delay for the repair of the vehicle. 7. The vehicle was intended for the livelihood of the complainant and his family. He is a driver by profession. Due to the delay caused in repair the complainant had loss of income and the loss of subsequent payments of road tax, insurance charges etc. Therefore he is claming a sum of Rs.1,82,800/- on different heads by way of compensation with future interest with a direction to opposite party No.1 to return the vehicle after completion of repair. 8. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed versions jointly. According to opposite party No.2 is not a sales executive but a finance co-ordinator. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have not received any amount from the complainant for obtaining All India Taxi Permit from the concerned Registering Authority. 9. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 the vehicle kept in their workshop and they had taken up the repair work. An amount of Rs.92, 872/- is the bill for the repair. After completion of the repair Opposite parties 1&2 informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle on 24-11-07. But complainant has not turned up. Now the vehicle is occupying a sizeable portion of the floor of opposite parties garage to which they are entitled for floor rent of Rs.175/- per day apart from their repair charges. 10. Opposite party No.3 filed his version. According to him he is totally a stranger to the allegations made in the complaint. He has not received any amount from complainant towards service charge and fee for All India Permit. According to opposite party No.3 he is running an office at Kanhangad for filling up all the forms in connection with various services available from the government offices. The complainant also approached him to fill up form No.45 c, 46 for All India Permit for his vehicle for that he charged a fee of Rs.50/- only. Hence there is no deficiency in service on his part. 11. Opposite party No4. In their version contended that the claim is repudiated since the complainant has not produced the permit. As per the terms and conditions of policy it covers the use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub section 3 of Sec.66 of MV Act. They had deputed a surveyor immediately after reporting the accident and the surveyor has assessed the loss sustained to the vehicle. Thereafter complainant was directed to produce the permit and authorization to settle the claim. But it was not produced. The complainant has produced a copy of the application for grant of authorization for tourist permit alleged to have submitted before State Transport Authority on 26-01-07. But the complainant has not produced any documents to substantiate that the said application was submitted before State Transport Authority. Hence the claim was repudiated. 12. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A26 marked on his side. He was cross examined by the counsels for opposite parties 1 to 4. For opposite party No.1 Sri.Vijayan the Works Manager of Indus Motors Kanhangad branch filed affidavit and he was cross-examined by counsel for the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit and subjected to cross-examination by counsel for complainant. Both sides heard and the documents scrutinized. 13. It is a common practice among the vehicle dealers that as part of their post sale services the customers, to making arrangement for the payment of the road tax, insurance premium etc. In case of taxi vehicles, the processing submission of required documents for obtaining permits from the concerned authority is also under took by them. Since most of the new customers may be ignorant about the procedures. There are so many auto consultants/agents doing this works after collecting service charges either from the customer or from the vehicle dealers. 14. The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties 2 &3 jointly received a sum of Rs.7000/- including their service charges and fee for obtaining the permit for arranging permit for his vehicle.Ext.A26 dt. 31-8-06 is a proforma invoice issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant. In Ext.A26 it is seen that in addition to the ex-show room price of the vehicle Rs.2,56,388/- a sum of Rs.7500/- is seen collected towards permanent registration charges. There is no explanation by either by opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 regarding the collection of said amount and it’s purpose. Despite the collection of said amount they stoutly denied the acceptance of Rs.7000/- for any purpose. The further contention of opposite party No.3 is that he has only filled up the necessary Forums for that he collected only Rs.50/- is also not believable. Usually the remittance of necessary fee for permit and such other things are done by the agent himself. The opposite party No.3 has no case that the complainant had any personal vengeance against him to implicate him falsely in the party array. The opposite party No.1 also cannot escape from their liability to compensate the complainant since the Ext.A26 invoice is issued by opposite party No. 1 that includes the charges for registration of vehicle. We do not think that for the permanent registration of the vehicle alone one customer will pay Rs.7500/- especially now a days the permanent registration are done by the dealers of vehicles at their own cost as part of their after sales services. So it is clear that the said amount is collected for arranging tourist permit for his vehicle as averred in the complaint. That apart it is hard to believe that the complainant was plying his vehicle as taxi without even applying for a permit and thereby violating the Motor Vehicles Act & Rules. 15. Therefore it is revealed that opposite parties 1 to 3 committed gross deficiency in their service rendered to complainant. 16. The contention of opposite party No.4 is that the vehicle was without a permit at the time of accident and that being a breach of policy condition, the claim is repudiated. We accept the said contentions and therefore it cannot be held that the repudiation of claim by opposite party No.4 amounts to any deficiency in service of opposite party No.4. 17. Hence only the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by him. 18. Relief & Costs. Had the vehicle of the complainant been possessing a valid permit at the time of accident then the insurer should have been liable to pay the compensation according to the assessment of the surveyor. The surveyors report is produced and marked as Ext.B4. As per the said report the surveyor assessed the damages of Rs.81,340/-. 19. According to opposite party No.1 a sum of Rs.92,872/- is due to him towards the repair charges and the repair of the vehicle was completed as on 26-11-07. The complainant had denied the opportunity to ply his vehicle to eke out his livelihood more than one and half years. The retention of the vehicle by opposite party No. 1 for no fault of the complainant is deprecated. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his income. The complainant also suffered much mental agony, hardships and sufferings due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3. 20. The opposite party No.1 is entitled to get their repair charges Rs.92,872/-. As per Survey Report, Surveyor assessed the damages at Rs.81,340/-. Opposite party No.4 denied this amount to complainant for want of permit to his vehicle and that was caused due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3. In addition to that the complainant has suffered much mental agony and sufferings. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant adequately for his mental agony and sufferings. The complainant could not ply his vehicle for about one and half years as on today and there by denied his livelihood. Therefore we fix a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,340/- (81340 + 30,000/-) (rounded to Rs.1,11,000/-) by way of compensation from opposite parties 1 to 3. We fix the liability of the opposite parties 1 to 3 severally in equal shares. Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are severally liable to pay Rs.37,000/- each to the complainant. In addition to that opposite parties 1 to 3 are also liable to pay Rs.3000/-by way of cost of these proceedings to the complainant. This amount shall also be paid proportionately in equal shares. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment. The opposite party No.1 is directed to return the vehicle to the complainant after repair in good running condition after collecting the balance amount deducting their liability (92,872 – 38,000/-) i.e. Rs.54,872/- without collecting any demurrage charges. Opposite party No.4 is exonerated from liabilities. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photocopy of RC A2.photocopy of Certificate of Insurance. A3. Pamphlet A4. Photocopy of job card A5. Photocopy of Acknowledgement for Receipt of money A6. Photocopy of renewal intimation. A7.Photocopy of renewal intimation. A8. Form No.46 application for grant of authorization for tourist permit of national permit. A9.Application for grant of permit in respect of tourist vehicle. A10.01-8-07 STA.2007 A11. Suhmission of Muhammed Sali.K.M. A12 Form-46 A13 Form 45 application for grant of permit in respect of tourist vehicle A14 Receipt and chalan A15. Form TVP A16.Form 47 authorisation tourist permit A17. 18-01-08 letter sent by opposite party to complainant. A18.22-1-08. copy of lawyer notice. A19. 13-02-08 reply notice. A.20. Photocopy of postal acknowledgement A21. copy of petition submitted by the complainant before the Dist. Legal Service Authority Kasaragod. A22.27-2-08 letter sent by OP to complainant. A23. 24-03-08 letter sent by OP to complainant. A24. Order dt. 8-3-08 of Dist Legal Service Authority Kasaragod A25. Photocopy of driving license. A26. Proforma Invoice. B1. 30-07-07 Job Card Retail Invoice. B2. 22-1-08 copy of lawyer notice. B3. 13-2-08 reply notice. B4. Postal acknowledgement card. B5. 8-12-07 Motor Final Survey report and photographs of the vehicle PW1. Mohammed Sali.K.M. DW1. Vijayan.K. DW2. Raja Krishna.M. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
