JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan vide which the Appellant was directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- along with other reliefs. 2. The factual background is that the Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 purchased a Hyundai Verna car from the Appellant, bearing registration no. RJ20-CC2524. The car was involved in an accident on 20.05.2014 while being driven by the Complainant's younger brother, Mr. Rahul Pareta. Subsequently, the car was taken to the workshop of the Appellant for repairs, with an initial assurance of delivery by 21.06.2014. However, upon visiting the workshop on the promised date, the Complainant was falsely assured of a later delivery date. Later, on 23.07.2014, Mr. Rahul Pareta filed a complaint and got registered an FIR against the Appellant and its staff members under Section 407 of the IPC. During the police investigation, it was discovered that the car had been stolen from the workshop. The Complainant was pressurised to withdraw the complaint in exchange for a new car, or to file an insurance claim instead. Dissatisfied with the service and unfair trade practices of the Appellant, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. State Commission, Rajasthan. 3. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 07.03.2017 allowed the Complaint and directed the Appellant to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of presentation of Complaint, i.e. 19.01.2015 till realization alongwith amounts of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation costs. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – “…The non-applicant no.2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and there is no allegation of deficiency against non-applicant no.2 Admittedly the vehicle was handed over to non-applicant no.1 and it was stolen from their workshop. Hence, no liability could be fastened on non-applicant no.2. The complainant has asked for the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 11,04,500/- and non-applicant no.1 has rightly contended that the vehicle was purchased in March 2012 and it was sent to their workshop in May 2014, Hence, the value of the vehicle was depreciated in two years and contention of non-applicant no.1 is that the value of the car was only Rs.5,39,029/-. It is true that the vehicle was purchased in March 2012 and it was left at the service station of the non-applicant no.1 in 2014. Hence, in two years the value must have been depreciated. Hence, in view of the above the complainant is entitled for the value of the vehicle Rs. 8 lakhs only. The amount will further carry interest of 9% from the date of presentation of the complaint i.e. 19.1.2015 till realization. It is also clear from the facts that the complainant remain deprived of the use of the vehicle and he must have to make alternate arrangements. Hence, for mental and physical agony further Rs. 2 lakhs are granted as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order should be complied within one month. The complaint is dismissed in favour of non-applicant no.2. In above terms this complaint is allowed.” 4. Ld. Counsel for Appellant has argued that the State Commission erred in not considering that the complaint was based solely on hearsay evidence shared by Mr. Rahul Pareta with the Complainant, who should have been made a party to the complaint, or should have submitted an affidavit supporting its contents; That the complaint was filed with inflated claims for mental agony and pecuniary damages, solely to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission; That the Appellant had lodged an FIR in due time and kept both the police officials and the Complainant informed about all the relevant developments; They also offered a higher model of the car to the complainant as a goodwill gesture, which was declined; That the State Commission failed to consider the depreciated value of the vehicle, which was already two years old and involved in an accident. Moreover, the Complainant had not paid the remaining repair charges amounting to Rs. 23,701/-; That there is a statutory requirement for car owners to have insurance coverage, and the Complainant should have been directed to file a claim with the Insurance Company instead of pursuing the complaint against them. 5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has argued that during the Police investigation, the Appellant's Manager disclosed for the first time that the car in question was stolen from their workshop. This crucial information was not shared with the Complainant or the Insurance Company, which adversely affected the Complainant's rights. Additionally, the total repair cost billed by the Appellant was Rs. 1,50,701/- out of which they had already received Rs. 1,27,000/- from the Insurance Company on 23.07.2014. However, since the Appellant was aware that the vehicle had been stolen from their custody on 10.07.2014, they should not have accepted payment for the repairs. Moreover, they failed to inform the Police and the Respondents about the theft until 26.07.2014; That the State Commission rightly considered the facts and issued a justified and reasonable order that does not require any interference; That the Appellant had a duty of care towards the vehicle given for repairs, which they failed to fulfil, resulting in deficiency in service. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 cited precedents from this Commission's Orders in cases such as "Hotel Hyatt Regency v. Atul Virmani, FA No. 102 of 2004" and "Taj Mahal Resorts v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., FA No. 440 of 2016" wherein it was held that hotels/owners of the premises, are responsible for thefts occurring in their parking lots. 6. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for both the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, and perused the material available on record. 7. Undeniably, custody of the vehicle was with the Appellant after the same was delivered to it for the purpose of repairs by the Complainant. Consequently, in the event of its loss/theft, the Appellant is undoubtedly liable to compensate the Complainant, if it is unable to return the vehicle, which was clearly held by it as custodian/Bailee for the same. The fact that the vehicle in question was insured is no excuse for the Appellant to avoid its liability. This is because, clearly, there was an inordinate delay in reporting about the theft on the part of the Appellant, and consequently the Complainant stood to be prejudiced in the event of denial of the claim by the Insurance Company on account of non-reporting about its loss promptly. 8. However, the compensation payable to the Complainant would have to be in accordance with acceptable norms, and not merely by guesswork by having assessed the value of the vehicle at ₹ 8 lakhs, as done by the Ld. State Commission. In this regard, the Respondent/Complainant has placed the relevant Circular issued by the IRDAI regarding valuation of insured vehicles according to their age. It is seen therefrom that the percentage of depreciation for vehicles having crossed the age of 2 years, but not 3 years has been fixed at 30%. The vehicle was purchased by the Complainant on 28th March 2012, and it was delivered to the Appellant/Opposite Party on the 21st of May 2014, before it was stolen sometime before the end of July. It was therefore clearly 2 to 3 years old at the relevant time. Its original purchase value was Rs. 11,04,500/- on which the depreciation at the rate of 30% would come to ₹ 3,31,350/- only. After deducting this amount from the original value, the compensation payable to the Complainant would therefore come to Rs.7,73,150/- only. 9. The Appeal is accordingly disposed off by modifying the impugned Order to the extent that instead of awarding an amount of Rs. 8.00 Lakhs towards value of the stolen vehicle, the amount is reduced to Rs. 7,73,150/- only. The direction for an additional award of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs. 25,000/- as costs of proceedings is set aside, and in lieu thereof, composite litigation costs assessed at Rs. 50,000/- are also awarded to the Complainant. Such payment shall be made with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint that is 19.01.2015. 10. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to pay this amount to the Complainant/ Respondent within 2 months from the date of this Order, failing which, the rate of interest on any outstanding amounts shall be @ 12% p.a., till its final realization. 11. Pending Application(s), if any, automatically stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. |
