In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.91/2011.
1) Sukesh Mondal,
SA-63, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-91. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Shree Automobiles (P) Ltd.
12B, Raja Basanta Roy Road,
P.S. Lake, Kolkata-26.
2) Priyam Motors Sales (Pvt) Ltd.
150, Maniktala Main Road, (near Ghosh Bagan Bazar),
P.S. Maniktala, Kolkata-54.
3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Poddar Court, Gate No.3,
18, Rabindra Sarani, 7th Floor, A,
P.S. Bowbazar, Kolkata-1. ----------Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 22-08-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.1 was a dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a manufacturer of cars and o.p. no.2 was the sub=-dealer / agent of o.p. no.1.
In 2008 complainant approached o.p. no.2 for purchase of a Bolero model vehicle of Mahindra make. O.p. no.2 introduced the complainant to o.p. no.1. It was agreed by and between o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the o.p. no.2 and delivered the said vehicle to the complainant. The complainant is entitled from o.p. no.1 and 2 facilities for financing, insurance and registration etc. for the said vehicle and that the complainant will pay an aggregate sum of Rs.6,96,691/- towards the purchase price of the said vehicle (ex-showroom price Rs.6,09,159/-) as well as other ancillary expenses therefore namely, registration fee, audio tax and insurance premium and service charges by way of consideration to o.p. nos.1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention that it is also a normal practice and/or usage in the trade and/or custom for a dealer and/or sub-dealer to arrange for finance, registration and insurance etc. of their customer’s vehicle.
Complainant purchased the said vehicle bearing engine no.GB84J48325 and chassis no.82J23708 and paid the purchased price for the same and other ancillary expenses thereof on different dates to o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 as per the particulars set out in para 8 at pages 4 and 5 of the said consumer complaint. The auto loan, registration and insurance of the said vehicle was arranged by o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Complainant paid Rs.2 lakhs to o.p. no.2 in Oct.2008 (out of which o.p. no.2 paid Rs.50,000/- by cheque and transferred through bank Rs.1 lakh to o.p. no.1 towards consideration amount for purchase of the said vehicle and remaining sum of Rs.50,000/- was towards insurance policy of the said vehicle and service charges Rs.17,077/- payable to o.p. no.3 by o.p. nos.1 and 2 as premium for the first year of the insurance policy and the balance out of the said Rs.50,000/- the consideration payable to o.p. nos.1 and 2 for the service charges rendered by them) Rs.50,000/- to o.p. no.1 on 19.11.08, Rs.3,97,191/- by way of auto loan from Federal Bank Ltd. to o.p. no.1 in Jan. 2009, Rs.48,000/- to o.p. no.1 in Feb.2009 and Rs.1500/- to o.p. no.1 on 12.2.09.
Insurance of he said vehicle was made with o.p. no.3 who issued a Motor Vehicle Cover Note and a Receipt being no.2401-00384887 dt.12.3.09 against a payment of Rs.17,077/- made by o.p. no.2 acting as an agent of and under the instruction of o.p. no.1 and on behalf of complainant by a cheque bearing no.132183 dt.5.3.09 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Manicktala Branch and o.p. no.3 issued an insurance policy bearing no.OG-090-2401-1801-00034115 dt.13.3.09 against the said premium for the period of 5.3.09 to 4.3.10 having the total sum insured at Rs.6,09,159/-.
The said vehicle was stolen on 24.1.10 and on the same date the complainant informed the Bidhannagar P.S. (North) about the theft and also lodged a claim with o.p. no.3 being claim no.37148487 in respect of the said vehicle. although the Bidhannagar P.S. (North) registered a case being case no.12 dt.24.1.10 u/s 379 of IPC, 1860 the police has not been able to trace and/or recover the said vehicle and have submitted a Final Report dt.28.7.10 in the court of Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar.
At all material time it was represented and/or warranted and/or assured by o.p. no.3 that the said insurance policy was valid and binding and the complainant’s said claim would be settled within a couple of months. O.p. no.3 deputed a surveyor to testify the veracity of the complainant’s said claim. The said surveyor filed a detailed report and interalia stated that the theft was a genuine one. However, all on a sudden, after six months of lodging of the said claim, o.p. no.3 by a letter dt.27.7.10 alleged that the said insurance policy was cancelled from the inception since the said cheque dt.5.3.09 issued for the said insurance policy was dishonoured and hence, the complainant’s said claim has been repudiated. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that At all material time it was represented and/or warranted and/or assured by o.p. no.3 that the said insurance policy was valid and binding and the complainant’s said claim would be settled within a couple of months. O.p. no.3 deputed a surveyor to testify the veracity of the complainant’s said claim. The said surveyor filed a detailed report and interalia stated that the theft was a genuine one. However, all on a sudden, after six months of lodging of the said claim, o.p. no.3 by a letter dt.27.7.10 alleged that the said insurance policy was cancelled from the inception since the said cheque dt.5.3.09 issued for the said insurance policy was dishonoured and hence, the complainant’s said claim is not payable an stands repudiated.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to pay the insured value of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 6,09,150/- (Rupees six lakhs nine thousand one hundred & fifty) only to the complainant compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
