Date of Order : 31.08.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay total compensation of Rs. 2.50 Lacs which includes cost of damage of vehicle and amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as well as litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had purchased a truck bearing no. BRQ – 1GA – 6841 which met an accident on 06.07.2010 in a bid to save a motorcyclist. Thereafter, a Sanha was lodged in Ganga Bridge police station being SDE no. 96 dated 06.07.2010 as will appear from annexure – 1. At the time of the aforesaid accident, the aforesaid vehicle is being driven by namely Chandeshwar Paswan @ Jitendra Rathor, son of Suraj Paswan. The photocopy of Driving license of the aforementioned driver has been annexed as annexure – 2.
It is further case of the complainant that at the time of the aforesaid damage of his vehicle due to aforesaid accident the vehicle in question was insured with opposite party no. 1 as will appear from annexure – 4 which is photocopy of insurance policy. From annexure – 4 it further transpires that insurance was effective from 02.12.2009 to 01.02.2010. After vehicle was damaged the said vehicle was brought to Sri Ram Body Builder, Bihta, Patna on 11.07.2010 who gave the estimate of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The complainant also purchased some parts from outside as will appear from annexure – 5 and 6. Thereafter, the opposite party served a letter to the complainant on 14.09.2010 in which the opposite party has stated that the name of the driver is different. In reply, the complainant and driver have given affidavit to opposite party that driver bears both the names i.e. Chandeshwar Paswan @ Jitendra Rathor as will appear from annexure – 7, 8 and 9 and thereafter the complainant also requested the opposite party to settle his claim as will appear from annexure – 10.
It appears from the record that despite submission of affidavit the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by opposite party.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 written statement has been filed stating therein that as the vehicle has been used as commercial purpose hence the complainant is not consumer as defined in section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act.
It has been further stated that at the time of accident i.e. 06.07.2010 the complainant had lodged a complaint by telephone in which the name of driver has been disclosed as Jitendra Rathor while in the claim form dated 11.07.2010 the name of the driver has been mentioned as Chandeshwar Paswan and when the driving License of Jitendra Rathor was requested to be provided, the complainant did not filed the same and due to this the claim has not been settled.
It has been also stated that as the complainant has filed affidavit stating therein that Chandeshwar Paswan is also known as Jitendra Rathor but this cannot be relied as no documents etc. has been attached with the affidavit to prove that Chandeshwar Paswan is also known as Jitendra Rathor hence no reliance can be placed on the affidavit of complainant.
-
The insurance is admitted, the accident and damage of the vehicle is also admitted but the opposite party refused to settle the claim of the complainant on the ground that no document has been filed in support of the affidavit of the complainant in which it has been asserted that Chandeshwar Paswan is also known as Jitendra Rathor. However, it is admitted that the complainant has stated that Chandeshwar Paswan is also Jitendra Rathor on affidavit and hence we have no option but to rely on the statement given by complainant on oath.
So far jurisdiction of this forum is concerned it is needless to say that as complainant has claimed his spent amount towards repair of his vehicle hence there is no question of rejecting the same on technical ground because it is the case of compensating loss of a person.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant within the period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 12% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand only) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
It would be open for opposite parties to make investigation with regard to the fact that Chandeshwar Paswan and Jitendra Rathor are the same person or different person. It is further made clear that if the statement in affidavit of the complainant is not found correct then opposite party may take action according to law. The opposite party may conclude the aforementioned enquiry if any within the period referred above i.e. three months.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member Member(F) President
