DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of November 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 06.03.2020 CC/42/2020
Rajeev. K.V
S/o Velayudhan. K.P
Kunnath (H), Edathara,
Palakkad
Pin 678 611 - Complainant
(Party in person) Vs
Nexa (Indus Motors Company)
Orchid mall, Calicut Bye pass
Sekharipuram, Palakkad.
(By Adv. J. Kamesh)
- Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant was working abroad for 9 years and when he decided to come to India, he applied a loan for an amount of 4,25,000/- through Norka for taking a Taxi car. On 24.05.2019, he booked a car in the Nexa Showroom and an advance payment of Rs. 3000/-was made and they promised to deliver the car by June 30th. On the basis of that assurance, he entered in to an agreement with a Private company for Taxi service. After that the opposite party company informed him that the delivery will be delayed and demanded an extra amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Because of the delay, the complainant lost the contract with the private company. Later the vehicle was delivered to him on 12.07.2019 and the opposite party issued a receipt of Rs. 5,09,602/- eventhough he made a payment for Rs. 5,25,714/-. But he could not use the vehicle as there was no temporary permit which he obtained only on 18.07.2019. There was further delay in getting the number plate and finally the number plate which he got the one was for private vehicle. So inorder to use the vehicle, he had to change it into Taxi. Because of all these things, he could not use the vehicle for Taxi purpose for nearly one month and had to face financial crisis as he was the only earning member of his family.
After that the complainant entered into agreement with another private company and was engaged in their service. On 21.02.2020, his vehicle met with an accident and he contacted the Maruthi Service centre for insurance claim. Then only he realised that the vehicle’s insurance was not in ‘Taxi’ category. So he could not claim the amount and he approached the opposite party to get it corrected and they assured him to do it as early as possible. But they did not do even after one month. He contacted their Head Office for this purpose; but his problem was not resolved. So he filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to change the insurance of the vehicle to ‘Taxi’ and to pay a compensation of 5,00,000/- for the financial loss suffered by him together with cost of the litigation.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The pleadings of the opposite party in their version is as follows.
The opposite party denied the entire allegations in the complaint. Their contention is that vehicle booked by the complainant was CNG Type (Gas Cylinder Vehicle) and such type of vehicles are ‘production on demand’. It was already informed to the complainant that such vehicle are produced only on giving special intimation and it takes more time to deliver the vehicle than the ordinary vehicle. Vehicles will be despatched from the company factory only after making full payment. The opposite party had intimated the complainant about the approximate time of delivery and he agreed to that. The complainant had remitted Rs. 5,25,384/- including the advance payment of Rs.3000/- and receipt was issued to him for that. Temporary permit was taken without any delay. After accident, the vehicle was repaired free of cost and insurance was also made proper. The complaint is without any merit and it has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties the following points arise for
consideration.
1. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of
opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant had suffered financial loss due to
Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence. He was examined as PWI and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked from his side.(A1 and A5 in service) Opposite party also filed Proof affidavit in evidence. No documents were marked from their side. Evidence closed. Both parties filed notes of argument. Heard.
6. Points No: 1 & 2
Complaint averment is that the complainant booked a car with the opposite party for ‘Taxi purpose’ on 24.05.2019 and an advance payment of Rs. 3000/- was made by him. On that day he arranged loan through ‘Norka Project for return Emigrants’ from the State Bank of India for taxi purpose and the opposite party promised to deliver the car before 30.06.2019. Based on this assurance, he entered into an agreement with a private company for their service. But the car was delivered only on 12.07.2019 after his repeated demands and the opposite party’s executive demanded an extra amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Because of the delay in delivery, he lost the contract with the private company. There was a further delay, in issuing the temporary permit of the vehicle and it was issued only on 18.07.2019. Then again it took another one week for getting the number plate. The number plate finally he obtained was that for private vehicle and for changing it to ‘Taxi’ further delay occurred. Because of all these, the complainant could not use the vehicle for one month which caused financial loss to him.
7. The opposite party contended that the vehicle was delivered in time. The vehicle booked by the complainant was CNG type and it takes more time for delivery than other vehicles, because such vehicles are produced on demand and after making full payment. This matter was informed to the complainant earlier itself. The last payment made by the complainant was on 11.07.2019 and the vehicle was delivered to him on 12.07.2019. They further contended that the permit is issued by the Central Government through ‘ Parivahan software’. The opposite party has no control over the same and there was no delay in issuing the permit. The time taken for issuing the permit is normal.
8. Exhibit A1 series (a) to (d) are the receipts issued by the opposite party towards payments made by the complainant.
Exhibit A1(d) shows that the last payment was made on 11th July 2019. The complainant himself admits that the vehicle was delivered to him on 12.07.2019. So the vehicle is delivered once the payment is completed. Normally vehicle is delivered as per priority and subject to availability of stock. Further the opposite party contended that the vehicle ordered is CNG type and such vehicles are produced on demand. Their contention seems to be reasonable and there was no inordinate delay in delivering the vehicle. Further the opposite party claims that temporary permit was issued in time. It was issued on 18.07.2019, ie 6 days after the delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party contends that they have no control over the issuance of the permit and it is issued by the Central government through ‘Parivahan software’. It is normal that in some cases it takes one or two weeks for getting the permit even after the completion of documentation. In the absence of any evidence to show that the opposite parties did not complete the documentation in time, they cannot be blamed for the delay caused in getting the permit.
9. The important aspect to be considered in this case is that the complainant booked the vehicle for ‘Taxi purpose’; but the vehicle delivered to him was private vehicle. Whether it amounts to Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Exhibit A4 is the recommendation letter from Norka Roots for considering the application of the complainant for allotting loan under the ‘Project for Return Emigrants’ (NDPREM). As per this State Bank of India has allotted the loan and the amount was transferred to the opposite party. So it is clear that the complainant booked the vehicle for Taxi purpose. But the opposite registered the vehicle under the private car category and the number plate allotted to him was that of private car. Eventhough they changed it and delivered the number plate within one week, it is a deficiency in service on their part. The complainant could not use the vehicle for some time and would have suffered financial loss on account of that.
10. Complainant’s another grievance is that his vehicle met with an accident on 21.02.2020 and when he contacted the Maruthi service centre for claim, he realized that the vehicle’s insurance policy was under ‘Private vehicle’ . He contacted the opposite party for resolving the issue. But they did not do anything till 04.03.2020. So he contacted their Head Office and entrusted the vehicle with them for repair. At the time when the complaint was filed it was not rectified. The complainant admits that later they rectified the defects in the vehicle free of cost and changed the insurance into that of “commercial vehicle”.
11. He produced the certificate cum policy schedule from National Insurance Company. As per that the policy was issued on 10th July 2019 and type of policy was “Bundled Motor Policy – 3 year TP + 1 year OD (Private Vehicle)”.
Another policy which is issued on 6th March 2020 is also produced by the complainant in which the policy type is changed as Package policy (commercial vehicle- passenger carrying)
Even though the complainant is bound to check the details of the insurance policy before putting his signature in the documents and it is issued by a different entity, here the mistake happened is due to the registration of the vehicle as ‘private’ by the opposite party. So the opposite is in a way liable for the loss happened to the complainant.
12. The complainant came to know about the type of insurance policy of his vehicle when he met with an accident on 21 02.2020 and he approached the opposite party for rectifying the mistake. This complaint was filed on 06.03.2020. From the certificate, it is seen that the new policy starts from 06.03.2020. So there is not much delay on the part of the opposite party in correcting it. During cross examination, Complainant admitted that he was in the service of a private company when the insurance was in the private type.
Complainant’s grievance is that eventhough the opposite party rectified his vehicle free of cost, he had to pay compensation to the 3rd party out of his pocket. This shows that Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party had caused financial loss to the complainant for which they are liable to compensate.
13 Points 3 and 4
Complainant claims for a compensation of 5 lakh rupees from the opposite party for the financial loss caused to him due to delay in delivery of vehicle, loss happened due to the registration of the vehicle as private and consequential problems in the insurance policy. Eventhough there was a mistake on the part of the opposite party in the case of registration and insurance, from the evidence adduced it is seen that they have rectified it and solved the issues of the complainant without much delay.
So in the facts and circumstances of the case,
We direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.15, 000/- for their Deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- for the financial loss caused to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 15th day of November, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 –(Series a to d ) Cash receipts issued by opposite party to the
complainant dated: 25.05.2019, 24.06.2019, 28.06.2019,
11.07.2019 (Original)
Ext.A2 – Tax invoice dated : 12.07.2019, issued by opposite party to the
complainant.(Original)
Ext.A3 – Proforma invoice dated 13.06.2019 issued by opposite
Party.(Original)
Ext.A4 – Recommendation letter dated 25.04.2019 issued by Norka
Roots to the Manager, State Bank of India.(copy)
Ext.A5 - (Series a &b) E-mail communications between complainant and
opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 - Rajeev (Complainant)
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party- Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party :NIL
Cost : 5000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in
the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer
Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing
which they be weeded out.
