Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/9/2015

SRI SOHRAB AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA Ltd.(M&M) - Opp.Party(s)

SRI SANJAY CHETRY

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a businessman by profession having a Polyclinic & Diagnostic Centre at Dibrugarh. The complainant for the convenience of running his business purchased one LMV Mahindra XUV 500 on 25-12-12 from OP No.1 through its dealer OP No.2 with the financial assistance of OP No-7. After purchasing the vehicle he insured the vehicle with OP No.3 and 4 with whom OP No.1 and 2 have tie up and the insurance was valid from 25-12-2012 to 24-12-2013 and the Insured Declared Value for the vehicle was Rs.12,96,409/-. The complainant paid Rs.52,066/- as premium for the above insurance. Unfortunately, on 18.07.13 at about while the complainant was coming from Guwahati to Dibrugarh the vehicle met an accident near Nelie, Nagaon, as a result, the vehicle got damaged which was duly informed to OP No.3 and 4  and the local police. Thereafter, on 20-07-13 the vehicle was towed  with the help of towing van and delivered to OP No.2 for repairing as per instruction of the OP No.3 and 4 and the complainant provided all the necessary documents to OP No-2 for getting cashless claim from the OP No-3. The complainant also paid an advance of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2 on 20-09-13  to initiate the repairing work of the vehicle. After delivery of the vehicle the complainant made several correspondences over phone and e-mail letters requesting OP No.2 for early repairing. But, when the complainant personally visited to workshop of  OP No.2  to know about the progress of repairing, he found that the OP No.2 did not start the work of repairing. As such, he wrote letter dated 08-10-14 requesting OP No.1 to repair the vehicle immediately. On receipt of the above letter by OP No.1, sent one reply through e-mail on 10-09-14 informing the complainant that he is requesting customer care manager at  Guwahati Mr. Debashish Das, OP No.5 and also send a copy of the letter to Mr. Debashish Das. Mr. Debashish Das, OP No.5 on 13-10-14 through an e-mail intimated the complainant that he is looking into the matter. The complainant again sent another letter to OP No.5 with request to let the complainant know the latest position of the repairing of the vehicle. But the OP No.5 intimated to the complainant that they are waiting for response from OP No.3, the Insurance Company. Meanwhile, a year elapsed for which the complainant sent another letter through e-mail asking OP No.5 to give adject  time frame to receive the response from him. But complainant was surprised to see the reply dated 21-10-14 of OP No-5 that the OP No. 5 is making correspondence with OP No.3 and 4 regarding the replacement of engine, which was approved by the Insurance Company at Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant was shocked because without informing anything about the replacement of the engine, OP No-5 is making correspondence for replacement of the engine directly with Insurance Company and took approval of Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, the complainant sent another letter dated 03-11-14 to OP No.5 which was duly received by him and replied that reimbursement is a prerogative of the concerned Insurance Company for which they have received approval for Rs.1,60,000/- for replacing the engine, whereas, the cost of the repairing of engine is expected to be Rs.2.8 Lacs and as such, requested the complainant to provide the balance amount so that repairing work can be started. The complainant on 13-11-14 informed the OP No.5 that he is not liable to pay the remaining amount because the estimate of the engine had to be given by the dealer to the Insurance Company at the earliest opportunity and not after expiry of one year. The OP No.5 sent  reply on the above e-mail on 15-11-14 informing that the Insurance Company has approved  Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining amount after salvage and depreciation for engine will be absolved by Insurance, Mahindra and Mahindra and Industrial and Farm Equipment. After repeated reminder by the complainant OP No.6 vide letter dated 25-11-14 and 01-12-14 sent letter stating that the materials has been despatched and approximate time to reach will be around 15-17 days and thereafter, it will take around a week time to make the vehicle on the road including test drive. Meanwhile, by this time one year and five months have  elapsed and for the first time the OPs have shown the total estimated repairing cost of Rs.10,08,877/- and the cost of engine which was subsequently estimate  at Rs.2.8 Lacs. At last, the OP No.6 vide e-mail dated 19-12-14 informing that the vehicle was ready to be delivered on 30-12-14 from the dealer. Further, the OP No.2 and 3 vide their e-mail dated 20-03-15 informed to the complainant that the Insurance liability has been worked out at Rs.6.05 Lacs and the rest of the amount is to be paid by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant personally went to the workshop of OP No.2 to get the delivery of the vehicle but found that his vehicle was not ready and still the work of painting was to be done. By this time the OP No.1 and 2 have taken more than one year and eight months to repair the vehicle and now asking to make payment of balance amount which is not approved by the Insurance Company is best known to OP No.1 and 2. Whereas, OP No.1 and 2 are having directly tie up with the Insurance Company. The cost of the  repairing has to bear  by the Insurance Company and thereby frustrated the very purpose of insuring the vehicle by paying premium of Rs.52,066/-. The act of the OPs from 1 to 6 were out and out deficiency in service due to their sheer negligence for which the complainant suffered immense loss, torture, harassment and agony. Hence, the complainant files this case with prayer for an award directing OP No.1 and 2 to deliver the possession of the repaired vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-06-M/0899 in good condition without paying any amount or delivery of a new Mahindra XUV 500, also prayed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- being the rent of the vehicle hired by the complainant for his personal use  at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month, also prayed to pay Rs.3,80,000/-at the rate of Rs.19,000/- per month being EMI paid by the complainant, also prayed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and hardship along with cost of the litigation.  

 

     After registering the case, notices were  issued to all  the OPs to which OPs No. 1,2,5,6 and 7 contested the case whereas, OP No.3 and 4 remain absent though the notices were duly served upon them. OP No.3 and 4 neither submitted written statement nor any evidence as such, the case against them proceeded ex-parte.

 

 

 

     OP No.1,5 & 6 while filing the written statement stated inter-alia that the case is not  maintainable in law as well as in fact.  It is stated that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OP No.1 as the complainant has failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The OP No.1 can only be made liable to an extent  of manufacturing defect and warranty related claim. OP No.1,5 and 6 further submitted that the full and final cost of estimate could not be provided at the initial stage unless the vehicle is completely dismantled and thoroughly inspected and the parts required to be replaced and repaired. On 29-12-14 a detail estimate was provided to the complainant for repairing of the vehicle. Further, it is stated that as per information received from the dealer that the engine damage was noticed when all the damaged electrical items were replaced and fitted in the vehicle and engine was started. The condition of the engine could not have been known unless the electrical components  and other mechanical components which play a part in ignition and starting the vehicle were replaced. The dealer would not have tested the engine before the necessary and mechanical parts were checked and replaced. When the damage of the engine was noticed, the same was immediately intimated to Insurance Company by the dealer. OP No.1,5 and 6 further stated that the delay of causing the repair are totally attributable to the Insurance Company who took its own time to give necessary approval otherwise the vehicle could have been repaired soon. The present complaint petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law and to arm twist the Companies herein in order to extract money. The OP No.1 has no role to play unless there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and for the above reason OP No.1 is not at all liable for payment of compensation for alleged deficiency in service in absence of proof of manufacturing defect replacing of new vehicle or refund the price of the vehicle and compensation do not arise. As such, the claim of the complainant against OP No.1,5 and 6 are baseless, flagrant and abuse of the process of law for which the OP No.1,5 and 6 prayed to dismiss the case against them being devoid of any merit.

 

 

 

 

The OP No.2 has filed separate written statement stating that they have received the vehicle on 20-09-13 for repairing and accordingly process for repairing of the vehicle started from 23-07-13. There are some procedure  to be communicated with the Insurance Company regarding the submission of  estimate and its approval from the Insurance Company for repairing the damaged vehicle and thereafter, the repairing may be started. It is the duty of the OP No.2 to provide estimate to the Insurance Company and it is the prerogative of the Insurance Company to approve the estimate provided by the OP.

 

Further, the OP No.2 stated that after receiving the vehicle on 20-07-13 Mr. M. Burman  visited on 28-07-13 and necessary steps were taken and accordingly on 29-07-13 the estimate was prepared which was received by the surveyor Mr. B.Adhikari on 20-08-13. Thereafter, on 24-08-13 Mr. M. Burman gave approval of dismantling the vehicle. On 20-09-13 the complainant paid an advance of Rs.50,000/-. The supply order of the parts was placed on 26-09-13 and after  receiving the said parts the vehicle was brought to the workshop for dismantling. On 06-12-13 surveyor Mr.B. Dhikari took necessary photograph after being dismantled of the vehicle and took photograph by Mr. B.Adhikari on 30-12-13. He also took photograph of front suspension after dismantling on 07-01-14 and after advice of the surveyor the rear suspension was dismantled on 25-01-14 and the surveyor took photograph of rear suspension on 31-01-14 and finally on 03-06-14 body denting, painting and mechanical jobs were  completed as per estimate. After  completion of job as per estimate, the OP No.2 started the engine after being ignited. But the engine was not started. So the OP tried to rotate the engine manually but could not rotate it as such, on 04-06-14 the matter was informed to the surveyor Mr. B. Adhikari who visited the workshop and necessary photographs were taken by him. The OP No.2 on 05-06-14 requested Insurance Company i.e. Ramakant Mishra for approval of replacement of the engine. Accordingly, Mr. S. Banerjee, surveyor approved the replacement of engine on 10-06-14 which was duly received by the OP through e-mail from surveyor Mr. Adhikari for engine dismantling approval on 17-06-14 and after being dismantled  Mr. Somnath Ghosh visited the workshop and took photograph on 25-06-14. On 03-07-14 the Technical Manager of the OP No.2 gave an intimation with a technical reason for failure of engine to Regional Manager Mr. Ramakant Mishra of the Insurance Company. After the final estimate for the engine was finally  prepared the survey report prepared. Mr. Dipankar collected the same on 04-07-14 from the office of the OP. On 10-07-14 the Technical Manager of OP No.2 received an e-mail from Insurance and on 21-07-14 another e-mail was sent to Mr. Ramakant by the OP for engine approval and on 30-07-14 OP No.2 received an e-mail from Mr. Ramakant with approval about engine gasket kit and engine cleaning. Thereafter, on 07-08-14 one e-mail was sent to Mr. Ramakant about requirement of new engine assay and on 29-08-14 OP received an approval amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Mr. Biswajit Mazumdar for engine work. Thereafter, on 27-09-14 the OP again received an e-mail from Biswajit Mazumdar about engine work approval of Rs.1,60,000/-. However, after long communication with Insurance Company finally on 11.11.14 the final approval of engine assembly with related parts had been given by the Insurance Company. As per approval of the engine and related parts Rs.2,00,000/- would be returned by Insurance Company and the rest would be borne by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd as well as dealer on goodwill.  After getting the said approval the OP on 15-11-14 placed order for supply of engine which was received on 14-12-14 and thereafter, fitting of the engine assembly and other  related parts with electrical repairing the vehicle had been made roadworthy condition by 27-12-14.  On 29-12-14 the pre-bill and  after confirmation from Insurance Company final invoice had been sent to Insurance Company on 02-01-15 and on 03-01-15 final inspection and photograph was taken by the  Insurance Company. After several communication the final assessment had been sent by the Insurance Company on 25-03-15 which was informed to the complainant. Thus, from the above fact it appears clear that OP No.2 was never negligent and always with due honesty dealing with their customer and  made endeavour to deliver the vehicle at early. But the hand of OP No.2 is tied up as because they are dependent of approval and estimate of the Insurance Company. It was the Insurance Company who took the entire liability and gave assurance to the customer to indemnify the vehicle against any accident. Further, e-mail dated 13-01-15, 20-01-15 and 11-03-15 issued by the Insurance Company to the customer itself speaks that the OP No.2 cannot deliver the vehicle without necessary formalities from the side of the Insurance Company in spite of  the fact that the vehicle of the complainant was ready for delivery on 27-12-14. However, the complainant due to some misunderstanding has claimed the compensation from the OP No.2, though the  explanation has elaborately given by the OP No-2. The OP No.2, made party in this case having no fault of them. As such, OP No.2 prayed to dismiss the case against him.

 

         OP No.7 in their written statement stated inter-alia that they have no role to play in connection with this case. He has provided loan facilities  to the complainant to purchase the vehicle which is  hypothecated to the OP. As such, the position of the purchaser remain merely a trustee/ bailee on behalf of the financer whereas, the ownership remains with the OP. Though the purchaser is registered owner of the vehicle but the  financer remains the legal owner till the entire payment is made and as such, the complainant is liable to pay the entire due without any default under all circumstances. Under the terms of the loan agreement, the OP has all the right to enforce the recovery of loan amount on default made by the borrower. It is admitted that an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and the EMI was fixed  Rs.19,609.14/-. The complainant is paying the EMI regularly which is admitted. There is no allegation by the complainant of any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.7 for which the OP No.7 is liable to be discharged from this case. hence, he prayed to dismiss the case against OP No-7.

 

In this case Complainant gave his evidence by swearing an affidavit and  exhibited as many as 31 (thirty one) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP No.1,5 & 6 have examined one witness Sri Sudhanshu Talwar and exhibited only one document. OP No.2 examined one Sri Rabindra Kr. Das, Manager, Industrial Farm and Equipments and exhibited as many as 15 (fifteen) documents and sub-documents to rebut the case of the complainant. The case against OPs No.3 and 4 have proceeded ex-parte.

 

Complainant, OP No.1,5 & 6 and OP No.2 submitted their written argument separately. Upon going through the evidence of the complainant and OPs and their written argument following decision is delivered.

 

      

          DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

  

            

Upon going through the evidence as well as documentary evidence it is found that complainant purchased one LMV Mahindra XUV 500 on 25-12-12 from OP No.1 and its dealer OP No.2 with the financial assistance of OP No-7. The vehicle was duly insured with OP No.3 and 4 with whom OP No.1 and 2 are having tie up and the insurance was valid from 25-12-2012 to 24-12-2013 and the Insured Declared Value for the vehicle was Rs.12,96,409/-. The complainant paid premium of Rs.52,066/- against the said insurance. It is admitted fact that while the complainant was coming from Guwahati to Dibrugarh the vehicle met an accident on 18-07-13 as a result of which, the vehicle got damaged. The fact was immediately informed to OP No.3 and 4 along with the local police. Subsequently, the vehicle was towed  on 20-07-13 with the help of towing van and delivered it to OP No.2 for repairing as per instruction of OP No.3 and 4. Meanwhile, the complainant provided all the necessary documents to OP No.2 for getting cashless claim from OP No.3 and 4. Initially, the complainant gave an advance of Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2 for repairing of the vehicle. After being delivery of the vehicle the complainant made several correspondences over phone and e-mail letters with OP No.1,2,5 & 6 repeatedly. The complainant also personally visited to the workshop of OP No.2 to know about the progress of repairing. It is also admitted fact that the vehicle was delivered on 20-07-13 but till 27-12-14 it was not ready. The OP No.2 admitted that the vehicle had been made roadworthy condition by 27-12-14 but due to several  communication which are to be done with Insurance Company and finally the Insurance Company made assessment and sent to OP No.2 on 25-03-15 and the vehicle was ready for delivery to the complainant. Thus, it appears that it took about one year eight months to deliver the vehicle after being repaired. The cost of  total repairing of the vehicle was Rs.10,08,877/- and Insurance Company worked out its assessment  at Rs.6.05 Lacs and the rest of the amount are to be  paid by the  by the complainant and there arose the dispute. No doubt a long period has been consumed to repair the vehicle than its normal time. The OP No.2 attribute the liability of delay to OP No.3 and 4. As such, matter required to be decided who is responsible for the cause of delay as well as the proportion of assessment.

 

       From the evidence of the complainant it is found that after delivery of the vehicle for repairing at the workshop of OP No.2 he made several correspondences over phone as well as several e-mail letter requesting for early repairing. While the complainant found that OP No.2 was not starting the repairing of the work, the complainant being aggrieved  send letter dated 08-10-14 to OP No.1 with a request to repair the vehicle at the earliest possible. OP No.1 in response to the above letter replied through e-mail dated 10-09-14 asking OP No.5 to look into the matter and to take necessary action as required. Ext-10 and 11 are the Exhibits of letter of the complainant as well as reply from OP No-1. From the above correspondence of Ext.10 and 11 it appears clear that though one year have elapsed yet the vehicle was not ready for which complainant had to make correspondence with OP No-1. Subsequently, OP No.5 through Ext.13 informed to the complainant that they  are waiting for the response from OP No.3, the Insurance Company. From the correspondence of OP No.5 complainant came to know vide reply dated 21-10-14 that the engine of the vehicle was  damaged after expiry of fifteen months from date of accident.  After repeated correspondence OP No.6 vide e-mail dated 19-02-14 informed to the complainant that the engine has been received by them and the same has been assembled with the vehicle and the electrical work is going on and thereafter, through an SMS complainant was informed that vehicle was ready to be delivered on 30-12-14. The complainant asked the OP No.2 and 3 as to how much amount the Insurance Company will bear and what amount is required to be paid by the complainant. Accordingly, complainant was informed through Ext.27 that the liability of Insurance has been worked out at Rs.6.05 Lacs, rest amount  would be paid by the complainant. further, from Ext.27 it reveals that the complainant refused to pay the remaining amount as they have suffered a lot in terms of money, mental harassment etc. for not receiving the vehicle in time and took about one and half years.

 

While perusing the evidence of OP No.2 the dealer as well as the workshop where the vehicle was delivered it appears that they have attributed the liability to the OP No.3 and 4. The OP No.2 has admitted that they have received the vehicle on 20-07-13 and it took long time to get it repair but not for the fault of OP No-2, the delay was caused due to the process of taking approval from the OP No.3 because, OP No.2 are having tied up and dependent upon the Insurance Company for approval of estimate. It was the negligence on the part of the OP No.3 and 4 for which long time was taken for repairing the vehicle. Regarding the cause of delay by OP No.2 has been clearly explained in their evidence as well as by the documentary evidence which shows clear that the OP No.2 is not at all liable for the cause of delay because OP No.2 is having tied up with OP No.3 and 4 i.e. Insurance Company and as such, approval of estimates is necessary as because Insurance took the liability and gave assurance to the complainant to indemnify the vehicle against any accident. From the evidence of OP No.2 it reveals that he has taken all steps and endeavour to proceed for repairing of the vehicle, since he received the vehicle for repairing, Insurance documents and Rs.50,000/- in advance.  But the surveyor Mr. M.Burman and Mr. B. Adhikari took much time while making survey, taking photograph and others and thereafter, dismantling was completed one after another with the permission of the surveyor. Necessary approval from OP No.3  were required for repairing parts and repairing which took much time and thereafter on 03-06-14 the body denting, painting and mechanical jobs had been completed as per estimate and approval of the Insurance Company. Subsequently, after completing the above works including electrical works on 04-06-14 when the OP No.2 tried to start the engine but the engine was not working. They have tried manually to rotate the engine but could not do the same due to hydraulic lock due to entry of water inside the engine through air tank system during accident and on the same day surveyor Mr. B.Adhikari was informed who visited the workshop and necessary photographs were taken by him. Thereafter, on 05-06-14 the OP No.2 asked Ramakant Mishra, employee of the Insurance Company for approval of the replacement of short engine assy along with other related parts. Thereafter, on 29-08-14 he received  an e-mail from Mr. Biswajit Majumdar about engine work approval  amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. Then, again it has been enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- vide Ext- ‘J’ and finally  vide Ext-‘K’ on 11-11-14 the OP No.2 received approval of the engine and related part of Rs.2,00,000/- which shall be borne by Insurance Company and rest amount of Rs.2,80,000/- would be borne by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as well as  dealer on goodwill. From Ext-‘L’ it appears that the OP received the short engine assy on 14-12-14 as soon as they received the engine assembly and other related parts. They assembled the  engine as well as done the electrical repairing and the vehicle had been roadworthy condition by 27-12-14. Then on 29-12-14 the pre-bill and after confirmation from Insurance Company final invoice had been sent to Insurance Company by 02-01-15 vide Ext-‘M’. Final inspection and final photograph was done by Insurance Company on 03-01-15. Several communications were made to the Insurance Company for assessment vide Ext-N(1) and N(2) dated 09-01-15 and 10-03-15 respectively but after long communication the final assessment had been sent by the  Insurance Company on 25-03-15. Thereafter, the OP No.2 informed the complainant about the final assessment through Ext.N(3) to N(7).

 

      From the meticulous scrutiny of the evidence of the OP No.2 it reveals that OP No.2 are having tie up with the Insurance Company and dependent upon the approval of the estimate as  the Insurance Company who will take the liability and gave assurance to the customer to indemnify the vehicle against the accident. It reveals that OP No.2 made all the correspondence with OP No.3 and 4, the Insurance Company from time to time as and when required but it was delayed by the OP No.3 and 4. Initially, immediate after taking possession of the vehicle OP No.2 informed the surveyor Mr. M. Burman and Mr. B. Adhikari who took much time during survey. The surveyor instead of dismantling the whole damaged body he took photograph on 30-12-13 of dismantling body then on 07-01-14 after dismantling front suspension then on 31-01-14  rear suspension and finally the repairing work started from 25-01-14 and by 03-06-14 the vehicle was ready by denting, painting and mechanical job and electrical work when the engine was started but the engine was not working due to entry of water inside the engine through air tanker system during accident. Thereafter, again for verification of the engine and approval it took much time from 04-06-14 to 11-11-14 and finally the vehicle was ready on 27-12-14 but another three months took for necessary formalities from the side of Insurance Company in spite of the fact that vehicle was ready. It is clear from the evidence of OP No.2 due to the negligence on the part of OP No.3 and 4 the Insurance Company, the repairing of the vehicle took more time than its normal time. The vehicle was  ready for delivery after more than one year eight months. The complainant being a businessman by profession had purchased the vehicle for the use of his business work with the financial assistance of OP No-7; whereas, he is paying EMI of Rs. 19,609.14/- per month till today without getting the service of his purchased vehicle for the negligence of OP No.3 and 4.

     In view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that OP No.3 and 4 are more liable for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant rather than OP No.2 because of OP No.2 made all endeavour to make correspondence with OP No.3 and 4 but due to lashes on the part of OP No.3 and 4 the vehicle could not get ready at earliest time. Due to deficiency of the service and negligence on the part of the OP No.3 and 4 complainant suffered sufficient damage in terms of money as well as mental agony and hardship. Hence, the OP No.3 and 4 are held liability for the suffering of the complainant. OP No.2 has nicely explained satisfying the cause of delay with their evidence as well as documentary evidence. Hence, I do not find negligence on the part of OP No-2. So far OP No.1,5 and 6 are concerned, it is found from their evidence that  they have no role to play. OP No-1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and OP No.2 is the authorised dealer of OP No-1. The relation between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 is not that of principal and agent but of principal to principal. So the OP No.1 is not involved in day to day working of OP No-2. If there is any liability of causing delay of the repairing or any omission whatsoever OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the act of OP No.2,3 and 4. As per Clause 27 of Legal Relationship -

 

“ The relationship between the Dealer and the Company is on Principal to Principal basis and the Dealer is not and shall not be the agent or employee of the Company for any purpose and the Dealer shall have no right or authority to assign or create any obligation of any kind, express or implied, on behalf of the Company to bind the Company in any way, to accept any service or process upon the Company or to receive any notice for and on behalf of the Company, of any nature whatsoever”.

 

Despite repeated request by the complainant and OP No.2, the OP No.3 and 4 neglected to approve the repairing of the vehicle and as such, this act of negligence has caused sufficient delay in carrying out the necessary repairing works and as such, for the negligence of other, OP No.1 cannot be held liable. Further, OP No.5 and 6 are also not liable because though they are not the part of and connected with the repairing work still then had made correspondence with the OP No.2 and OP No.3 and 4. There is no allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. As such, the OP No.1,5 and 6 are not held liable for causing delay in repairing of the vehicle.

 

         So far the liability of the OP No.7 is concerned, it is found from the evidence on record that he has provided  loan facilities to the complainant to purchase the vehicle which is hypothecated to the OP. As such, the position of the OP No.7 is legal owner of the vehicle till the entire payment is made. Whereas, the purchaser is the trustee/bailee on behalf of the OP No.7, the financer and under the terms of the loan agreement OP No.7 has all the right for the recovery of the loan amount. Since the complainant is paying the EMI fixed at Rs.19,609.14/- there is no allegation against OP No-7. Besides, OP No.7 has no role to play in connection with the accident as well as repairing of the vehicle and delay of delivery. As such, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.7 for which the OP No.7 is not held liable for negligence and discharge of their service.

 

          In view of the conclusion arrived at above this Forum comes to the conclusion that the evidence led by the complainant has been able to disclose sufficient material of deficiency in service  and illegal trade practice committed by OP No.3 and 4 Insurance Company by delaying the approval and sanction of repairing parts even after repeated correspondence made by the complainant as ell as by OP No-2.  Hence, OP No.3 and 4 are held liable for negligence, deficiency and illegal trade practice.

 

         In view of the discussions made above this Forum comes to conclusion that OP No.1,2,5,6 and 7 are not held liable for negligence and deficiency in service as such, case against them is dismissed without cost.

 

        Under the circumstances as stated above, the Act  has provided for correcting their shortcoming in service or goods provided by way of awarding compensation for other means satisfied in provision 14(d) the Forum comes to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service and loss suffered by the complainant for the reason discussed above for not delivering the vehicle in due time after repairing whereas, complainant is paying the EMI regularly, the OP No.3 and 4 is imposed a consolidated compensation of whole amount of repairing  for the loss assessed, mental harassment, pain and suffering and OP No.2 is directed to deliver the possession of repairing vehicle Mahindra XUV 500 bearing Registration No.AS-06-M/0899 in good condition without any delay and without making any payment by the complainant and directed to recover the entire amount of repairing from OP No.3 and 4. Further, OP No.3 and 4 are directed to pay the cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. All the above act will be completed including payment within one month from the date of this judgment. Furnish copy of this judgment to the OP No.2,3 and 4 for compliance.