Orissa

Cuttak

CC/154/2019

Malabika Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Padma Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R N Parija

03 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                              C.C.No.154/2019

Malabika Dash,

D/O:Er. Basanta Kumar Dash,Flat No.C/2,

Odissy Enclave,Matha Sahi,Tulasipur,

Cuttack.                                                                                          ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Padma Motors Pvt. Ltd., represented through its

Managing Director,authorised FORD Dealer,

Pratap Nagari,Cuttack-753011.

 

2.       IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Represented through its Authorised Officer,

HIG-22,Ist Floor,BDA Colony,Jayadev Viohar,

Bhubaneswar,Odisha,PIN-7501013.

 

3.            Ford India Pvt. Ltd.,(Regional Office),

P.S:Srijan Maestro,113 G,Matheswartala Road,

Office No.601 & 602, 6^th Floor,West Bengal,

Kolkota-700046.

 

4.       IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.

IFFCO Tower,Plot No.3,Sector-29,Gurgaon,

Haryana,India,PIN-122001.                                                         ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.11.2019

Date of Order:  03.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. R.N.Danija,Advocate.

For the O.P No.1 :                      None.

For the O.P No. 2 & 4:               Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3:                      Mr. D.P.Dhal,Adv. & Associates

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                     

            Case of the complainant in short is that she is the owner of a Ford Fiesta 1.5L Diesel DI TC 14 Series 35 MT Car bearing Regd. No.OR-02-BZ-4239.  The said vehicle of the complainant was insured through the O.Ps no.2 & 4 and the said insurance was valid with effect from 12.7.18 to 11.7.19 midnight.  She had subsequently renewed the said insurance which was effective from 12.7.19 to 11.7.20 midnight.  On 7.7.19 at about 5 P.M., the said car of the complainant was severely affected by flood water due to heavy rain at Jobra area of Cuttack and the car being driven then by one Parsuram Jena who had valid driving license.  She had informed about the said fact immediately to O.P no.2 and as per the advice of O.P No.2 she had also informed the matter to the O.P No.1.  O.P No.1 thereby had taken away the vehicle of the complainant to the workshop at Pratap Nagari area of Cuttack on 7.7.19 and on 22.7.19, OP No.1 had submitted one estimate slip amounting to Rs.17,205.26p towards the repair of the damaged car of the complainant.  The said estimated slip was provided to the O.P No.2 personally but since then no response is noticed though the complainant is running to the O.Ps no.1 & 2 for getting her car repaired, for which, the complainant had to send a legal notice on 16.10.19 to all the O.Ps.  Ultimately, the complainant had to file this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to pay her a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards all the expenses as incurred by her from the date of the damage of her vehicle.  She has also claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment from the O.Ps together with a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

            She has filed copies of a series of documents in order to establish her case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, the O.P No.1 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.10.2.21.  Out of the remaining O.Ps who have contested this case, O.Ps no.2 & 4 have jointly filed their written version whereas O.P No.3 has filed his separate written version.

            As per the contention of the O.Ps no.2 & 4 in their written version, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with cost being not maintainable.  It is alleged by them that the complainant had failed to produce the vehicle for dismantling the same and for enabling the survey.  They admit about the claim as alleged by the complainant when her vehicle stopped running on 7.7.19 at Jobra area of Cuttack.  O.Ps no.2 & 4 have stated that through their letters dt.27.7.19,20.8.19 and 5.12.19 they had requested the complainant to produce the vehicle for dismantling the same in order to enable them to assess the loss but the complainant had not replied to any of those letters nor had she co-operated in any manner.   When the complainant had failed to produce the required documents and had remained silent, O.Ps no.2 & 3 were forced to close the claim as made by her.  Thus, there was no deficiency in their service.  They had rather alleged through their written version that inspite of their request to the complainant to tow, the vehicle to the workshop of O.P No.1, she had not responded.

            They have filed copies of those letters in order to prove their case.

            O.P No.3 in his written version has also mentioned to dismiss the complaint petition which according to him is not maintainable.  He admits about the purchase of the Ford Fiesta 1.5L Diesel DI TC 14 Series Car by the complainant having Regd. No.OR-02-BZ-4239 on 6.7.12.  According to O.P No.3, there was no deficiency in service, rather it is the complainant who is solely responsible and due to her non-cooperation no action could be taken for which the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

            O.P. No.3 has also filed copies of several  documents to prove his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version as filed by the O.Ps, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the O.P had practised any unfair trade?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

            The complainant has filed her evidence affidavit in order to prove her case.

Issue No.ii.

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, here in this case, the complainant had purchased one Ford Fiesta 1.5L Diesel DI TC 14 Series 35 MT Car bearing Regd. No.OR-02-BZ-4239.  It is also admitted fact that the said vehicle of the complainant was under insurance coverage which was valid on the date of occurrence i.e, on 7.7.19.  According to the complainant, her vehicle was taken to the nearby authorised workshop of the Ford Company i.e. to workshop of O.P No.1  on that date as per advice of O.P No.2.  She has also stated about the O.P No.1 submitting estimate slip on 22.7.19 regarding the repair cost of her damaged car.  She has further stated to have submitted the said estimate slip to the O.P No.2 personally.  In her evidence affidavit she has corroborated all her averments as made in her complaint petition by submitting written deposition in an identical manner.  But O.P no.2 & 4 through their written version have stated that the complainant had not cooperated and had not responded to their letters dt. 27.7.19,20.8.19 and 5.12.19.  They have filed copies of the said letters alongwith their written version vide Annexure-A series.  On perusal of the said letters as annexured in the written version of O.,Ps 2 & 4, it is noticed that though those letters reflect to have been sent to the complainant through registered postal service, but they have not filed any document in order to appraise this Commission that if infact the said three letters were duly served on the complainant to which the complainant had not responded and therefore, this Commission could come to a conclusion that indeed the complainant was at fault and was non-cooperative to the requests as made by the O.Ps 2 & 4 inspite of receiving letters to that effect from them.  On the contrary, on perusal of Annexure-3 as filed by the complainant together with her complaint petition, it is noticed that infact one estimate slip towards the repair cost of her damaged vehicle was given on 22.7.19 by the O.P No.1.  Thus, the contention of the complainant appears to be genuine and when weighed, the balance of convenience leans in favour of the complainant therey discarding the plea as made by O.Ps no.2 & 4.  Thus, the allegation that the complainant was non-cooperative for which her claim was closed by O.Ps no.2 & 4 appears to be incorrect.  Accordingly, this Commission arrives at a conclusion that in fact, the O.Ps no.2 & 4 were deficient in their service towards the complainant by not paying any heed towards her damaged vehicle even though the said vehicle was under valid insurance coverage and the plea taken on that context by the O.Ps no.2 & 4 appears to be quite vague and unbelievable.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

            When the complainant could not get her damaged vehicle repaired even though she had valid insurance coverage, by filing this case her case is definitely maintainable and she undoubtedly entitled to the reliefs as sought for by her but ofcourse to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                           

ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 and exparte against O.P No.1.  All the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 are thus directed to clear up the estimated damaged cost of the car of the complainant and get her vehicle repaired through O.P.No.1 within a month of getting this order.  The O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the mental harassment and agony as caused to her due to their negligence and also to bear the litigation expenses of the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.