Hon’ble Mr. Sudip Niyogi, President.
The fact of this case in short is that the Complainant, who is a businessman, had purchased one Luxury Car Model No. ICML Extreme LD, BS3 of International Cars & Motors Ltd. from the OP at a price of Rs.7,64,216/- on road which was financed by Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, to which the said vehicle was hypothecated. Later, he got the said vehicle insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and also duly registered bearing No.WB-64-J-9036 having Engine No. G1408514BO7515 and Chassis No.MCLSAGIWPRB008852. The OP had assured the Complainant that they would render proper service in respect of the said vehicle. In the month of July, 2015, the said vehicle met with an accident, in which major damage was caused to the vehicle. The said vehicle was taken to the OP, who was also an authorized Service Centre of the Maker of the vehicle. On examination of the vehicle on 22.03.16, the OP issued an estimate of Rs.3,72,819.20 for repair of the vehicle. However, before the estimate was issued, the Complainant paid an advance of Rs.58,000/- by paying different sums on three occasions towards the cost of repair of the vehicle, for which money receipts were issued by the OP. According to the Complainant, the OP promised to return the vehicle within 2 months. However, even after expiry of stipulated period, the OP did not return the vehicle despite repeated requests and ultimately, the Complainant filed the instant case u/s 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking several reliefs including direction for return of the said vehicle after completion of repair works etc.
The OP by filing a written version, evidence and written argument contested the case denying the allegations made by the Complainant. The OP claimed that the said vehicle though having a private number, it was plying for commercial purpose at the time of accident and they could not start the repairing work immediately as the said vehicle was required to be inspected by the Insurance Co., which took much time to complete their survey work. However, after completion of survey work by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP started repairing work and completed the same on 10.03.16. Again, he had to wait for final survey work of Insurance Co. and thereafter, the Complainant was informed over phone to take his vehicle on making of final payment of repairing cost. But, the Complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle by paying the balance amount of cost of repair.
Further, in the written version, the OP made it clear that he was not carrying his business in the name and style “M/s Maa Durga Transmotives”, instead he was carrying his business under the name and style “Saha Auto Pvt. Ltd.” being the authorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd.
On the basis of contentions of both the parties, following points are required to be considered:-
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the instant case is maintainable and
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, as alleged?
4.Is the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 & 2.
the instant case. Both the parties are found to be within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the amount claimed is also found to be within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. So, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point No. 3 & 4.
The Complainant is found to have supplied documents as Annexures. These are Tax Invoice of the vehicle issued by M/s Maa Durga Transmotives i.e. OP (Annexure-A), Certificate of Registration etc. (Annexure-B), Photograph of the damaged vehicle (Annexure-C), Cash Memo which is said to be the estimate issued by OP (Annexure-D), Three Money Receipts on different dates showing payment of cash by the Complainant to the OP amounting to Rs.58,000/- in total (Annexure-E).
On behalf of the OP also, several documents have been filed. Annexure-A is the photograph of the damaged vehicle, Annexure-2 is the Motor Re-inspection Survey Report containing 3 pages, Annexure-3 is one copy of Request for Account Statement. This apart, we have two documents, which are the Reports of Mechanical Examination of the said vehicle dated 18.10.17 and 12.04.18.
On going through the materials on record and hearing the submissions of both parties, it is found that OP did not deny that the damaged vehicle of the Complainant was given to him for the purpose of necessary repair work, though OP claimed about changing the name of his business but he is carrying the business as its owner. He had issued a cost estimate in respect of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,72,819.20, which is also admitted by the Complainant. The OP also admitted that Rs.58,000/- was paid to him by the Complainant as an advance towards the repairing cost.
Now, the main allegation of the Complainant is that even after stipulated time of two months was over, the OP did not return the vehicle to him despite repeated requests. The OP denied the fact that he had agreed to deliver the vehicle after two months on completion of repair work. According to OP, the delay was caused due to procedure for inspection of the vehicle by Insurance Co. It is clear that the vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. So, the OP had a claim from Insurance Co. for compensation in view of the accident of the vehicle. It is quite natural that before the actual repair work could be started, Insurance Co. would inspect the vehicle to ascertain the extent of damage and the amount of compensation payable to the Complainant. So, in this connection, the OP’s claim for delay seems to be justified.
The accident took place in the month of July, 2015. From the complaint, it is found that the OP issued the estimate on 22.03.16. From Annexure-2 filed by OP, it is found that final survey work was done by the Surveyor of Insurance Co. on 11.03.16 whereas the said Surveyor filed the report on 31.05.16. So, this delay cannot be attributed to the laches on the part of the OP though Complainant is silent about the amount of compensation he received from the Insurance Co. after survey of the vehicle was done. The OP claimed that a sum of Rs.1,87,700/- was settled by Insurance Co. after deduction of Depreciation, Policy Excess and Salvage by Insurance Co. on 09.02.17 towards the claim of the Complainant but even after receipt of that amount, the Complainant failed to pay the balance amount of repairing cost and take the vehicle. It was not denied by the Complainant.
According to OP, the vehicle has been kept at his workshop under proper care. In the written argument, the Complainant pointed out that on inspection of the vehicle by Motor Vehicles Inspector, no Chassis No. could be found and the Complainant alleged about replacing/changing of Chassis of the vehicle by the OP. He also alleged that the OP violated the provision of Motor Vehicles Act in changing the Chassis. On the other hand, the OP in the written argument claimed that the vehicle including Chassis got extensive damage and at the time of repairing the “ Chassis Frame Assembly” and “Chassis Cross Number” had to be replaced along with other parts of the vehicle. In support of the said contention, Ld. Counsel for OP drew our attention to Sl. No.38 and S.l.No.49 of Annexure – D of the Complainant and also Sl.No.49 of Annexure-2 of the OP, which showed about damage and replacement of the Chassis and according to OP, due to such replacement of “ Chassis Frame Assembly”, the Chassis No. could not be found by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The Ld. Counsel for the OP maintained that change of Chassis of the vehicle is required to be informed to the Motor Vehicles Department by the Complainant in accordance with the provision of Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act.
During argument, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant raised about fitness and road-worthy condition of the said vehicle and that’s why, the Complainant had made a prayer for inspection of the said vehicle by the Motor Vehicles Inspector to ascertain the condition and his prayer was allowed and accordingly, Mechanical Inspection was held by Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical) of the Motor Vehicles Department, Govt. of West Bengal, Cooch Behar and he submitted a report on 18.10.17. Subsequently, again, the said vehicle was inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector (Technical), who submitted a report and in both the reports, it has been opined in no uncertain terms that the said vehicle is mechanically fit and road-worthy. However, Chassis No. could not be found but absence of Chassis No. might be due to change of Chassis as argued on behalf of the OP. The change or replacement of Chassis, which was severely damaged, for which Chassis No. is not appeared, cannot be the reason for refusal and acceptance of the vehicle by the Complainant. Section 52-Sub-Section-3 of Motor Vehicles Act envisages that “Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein. “
Thus, on consideration of the materials and in view of the discussions as made above, we are of the opinion that as repairing work of the vehicle was completed, the vehicle was found to be mechanically fit and road-worthy. The OP is to deliver the said vehicle to the Complainant on payment of balance amount for the cost of repair. In this case, we are not going to pass any order in terms of the prayer of the Complainant for compensation etc. as we find no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as alleged by the Complainant.
It may be mentioned here that this case was filed on 06.04.17. The Insurance Co. settled the claim of compensation of Rs.1,87,700/- on 09.02.17. The vehicle was first inspected by Motor Vehicles Inspector after completion of repairing work on 16.10.17 and the report of which came on 18.10.17. So, this case ought to have been settled by the parties immediately thereafter. Unnecessarily, the said matter has been dragged and in our opinion, without any cogent reason.
With this, all the issues are disposed of.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant Case No. CC/44/2017 be and the same is disposed of with a direction to the OP to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant on receipt of balance amount of the repairing cost of the vehicle from the Complainant. OP to deliver the vehicle within 02 days of receipt of the balance amount of cost. No order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
