Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/326/2021

Sunita Singal W/o Naveen Kumar Singal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pushpa Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Agarwal

08 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:326 /2021

 

Sunita Singhal w/o Naveen Kumar Singhal r/o 71/261, Paramhans Marg, Near Kendriya Vidayalaya No.5, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Pushpa Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., regd.office 54/219-220, Heera Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur through Director & ors.

 

Date of Order 8.11.2021

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member

 

Mr.Naveen Singhal learned counsel for the appellant

Mr.Lokesh Sharma learned counsel for respondent no.1

Mr.Bhupender Singh learned counsel for respondent no.2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):

2

 

Present appeal is preferred by the appellant complainant assailing the impugned judgment dated 6.4.2021 passed by the learned DCC Jaipur 4^th Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 58/2018 (Sunita Singhal Vs. Pushpa Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. & ors.) whereby the learned DCC dismissed the complaint.

 

Brief facts relevant for this appeal are that appellant complainant filed a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P.Act,1986 before the learned DCF stating therein that she purchased Honda Activa scooter on 28.9.2017 from non-applicant no.1 and paid Rs. 56,912/- as ex-showroom price of scooter including insurance and registration charges. Apart from it Rs.3,616/- was paid for accessories and Rs.300/- for basket in cash. When she took delivery of the scooter on the said date i.e. 28.9.2017 she was given three receipts bearing no. 3603 for Rs.300/-, receipt no.1588 for Rs.3616/- and receipt no.3564 for Rs. 56,584/-. It is pleaded that the ex-showroom price of the scooter was Rs. 50,449/- and registration charges was Rs.4,680/- and insurance charges was Rs. 1477/- which was included in ex-showroom price. It is also pleaded that when it was noticed that in receipt no. 3564 Rs.306/- was less then it was enquired about it and it was told that Rs. 306/- is for road

3

 

side assistance facility. The complainant told that she does not require any road side assistance facility therefore, this amount may be returned but it was not returned. It is also pleaded that non-applicant no.1 provided insurance certificate but vide letter dated 31.10.2017 non-applicant no.2 informed the complainant that since the insurance premium amount is paid through cheque and that cheque has been dishonoured therefore, the insurance cover note is cancelled. It is pleaded that non-applicant no.1 after taking cash amount on account of insurance did not transfer the insurance amount to non-applicant no.2 which is clear deficiency of service. Lastly it is prayed that complaint may be allowed and Rs. 306/- which was taken as road side assistance facility may be returned with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses may also be awarded.

 

In reply non-applicant no.1 admitted that complainant purchased the scooter from him and road side assistance facility was given on request of complainant after receiving payment of Rs.306/- therefore, no question arises to return the amount. Further the cheque was dishonoured due to bonafide mistake of bank but later same was encashed and the

4

 

commencement of policy date remained same which does not cast any loss to complainant. Lastly it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 

Non-applicant no.2 in its reply pleaded that since cheque was dishonoured therefore, the policy was cancelled.

 

Both the parties submitted affidavits and documents in support of their pleadings. Thereafter after hearing the parties learned DCC dismissed the complaint against which this appeal is filed by the complainant.

 

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Naveen Singhal submits that the vehicle of appellant remained uninsured for 45 days therefore, appellant complainant suffered mental agony. He further submits that road side assistance facility was never opted by appellant complainant still Rs. 306/- were charged for that account which did not return. Without considering this fact learned DCC wrongly dismissed the complaint.

 

Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.1 Mr.Lokesh Sharma submits that the insurance certificate was

5

 

issued and supplied to appellant complainant effected from 27.9.2017 to 26.9.2018. He submits that cheque issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 was dishonoured due to fault of bank which was later cured and the commencement of insurance remained same. He submits that after receiving notice regarding cancellation of policy the appellant did not contact with respondent no.1. If she would have contacted with respondent no.1 the matter might have been sorted out immediately. He submits that road side assistance facility was given on request of complainant. Considering all these facts learned DCC rightly dismissed the complaint.

 

Mr.Bhupender Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 also supported the impugned judgment and submitted that since cheque was dishonoured therefore, insurance certificate was rightly cancelled.

 

During course of arguments he also conceded that when respondent no.1 came to know regarding dishonouring of cheque he deposited fresh cheque which was encashed and the date of commencement of policy was again kept same therefore, no loss was caused to the appellant. He submits that

6

 

appeal may be dismissed.

 

We have considered the submissions made at Bar.

 

So far as road side assistance facility charges is concerned learned counsel for the complainant Mr.Naveen Singhal issued notice to respondent no.1 on 13.12.2017 wherein in para no.3 it is clearly stated that receipt for Rs.306/- for road side assistance facility was issued to complainant. Therefore, the fact that receipt for Rs. 306/- was not issued is false. Further in the prayer clause of notice no demand is made for aforesaid road side assistance facility charges. Therefore, when receipt was issued and no demand was made for return the amount of Rs. 306/- in the notice, it shows that this facility was extended on request of appellant complainant.

 

So far as insurance policy is concerned, since after receiving notice from insurer regarding cancellation of certificate no loss is caused to appellant and after receiving the notice she did not even enquired about the ground on which cheque of respondent no.1 was dishonoured. More so when after depositing fresh cheque from respondent no.1 the date of

7

 

commencement of insurance was again remained same then it cannot be said that there is any malafide or deficiency of service. Considering all these facts learned DCC dismissed the complaint which does not require any interference.

 

Accordingly, the appeal devoid merits which is hereby dismissed.

 

(Shobha Singh) (Banwari Lal Sharma)

Member President

 

 

 

nm