This is an Appeal filed by the above named Appellant/opposite party under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, being First Appeal Case No. 5 of 2022   (in short the Appeal), challenging the order dated 22.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Imphal  (in short the District Commission) in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Complaint). While allowing the Complaint the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 in favour of the Respondent directing the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 86,609/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand six hundred and nine only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of impugned order.

2.         The brief facts of the Appeal are that the Respondent namely Mr. R.K. Sanayaima Singh approached the Appellant namely M/S Eastern Motor’s office for ordering a small pick-up truck for his own personal use. The Respondent briefed the Appellant about his wish for a registration under private vehicle category and a non-commercial policy package for the said vehicle. Hence, the Respondent booked for the purchase of the Maruti Super Carry Diesel STD on 08.05.2018 at the Appellant’s sales office/showroom. Accordingly, the said vehicle was delivered to the Respondent on 22.06.2018, with Engine No. E02A1021243, Chassis No. MA3FZBH1T00110855, Metallic Silky Silver in colour. But to the utter surprise, though he briefed the Appellant for non-commercial insurance policy, the Appellant issued MARUTI Insurance Policy certificate bearing no. 900259006/N90226326 for the period from 15^th March, 2018 to the midnight of 14^th March, 2019 for commercial package at the “SBI General Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd”, but the vehicle was registered under Private Vehicle category. All the documentations like registration certificate, insurance of the vehicle were handled by the Appellant’s office on behalf of the Respondent since he had limited knowledge regarding the above stated documentations after the purchase and delivery. Consequently, the Respondent made a verbal complaint regarding the benefits of commercial and non-commercial packages in that the Appellant assured that the said insurance package/policy could be changed to non-commercial at the time of renewal of the insurance policy and that he would be entitled with the both the benefits of commercial and non-commercial policy package. Accordingly, on expiry of the 1^st Insurance policy, he approached the Appellant for the renewal of the insurance policy under non-commercial policy. However, the Appellant again issued a commercial Insurance Package Policy under No. 98000030080307650531 with validity from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020 at the “New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd” despite his choice and request for the reasons best known to the Appellant.

3.         The further case of the Respondent in the complaint is also that during the subsistence of the second Insurance Policy, sometime in the month of April, 2019, the said vehicle needed repairs owing to breaking down of some parts, with some scratches on the vehicle’s body as well. Thus, the present Respondent approached the workshop run by the Appellant for repairing of the vehicle against the insurance policy which was turned down for repairs against the insurance claim on the ground that the said vehicle was registered under private vehicle category but the insurance policy was that of a commercial package. Hence, the Respondent was further told that he would be entitled to avail the insurance claim of the repairs if he could bring Route Permit and Fitness Certificate. But the Appellant stated that the said certificates were given only for commercial vehicles and not for private vehicles. Consequently, the Respondent was compelled to repair his vehicle at his own personal expense at a private workshop in which he spent an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Thus, the Respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission, Imphal on being aggrieved of the unfair trade practice and misguidance on the part of the Appellant.

4.         The District Commission, Imphal proceeded the Complaint ex-parte against the present Appellant vide order dated 29.03.2022 when the Appellant failed to appear and contest the complaint before the District Commission even though the Appellant was given ample opportunities. Thus, after scrutiny of the Complaint and the accompanying documents filed thereto, the Ld. District Commission, Imphal concluded that the Appellant had adopted unfair trade practice despite request by the Respondent, the vehicle was issued Insurance Policy of Commercial Package on two consecutive occasions. Further, it was also held that the Insurance Agent of the Appellant had misinformed the Respondent that he would be entitled to the benefits of both commercial and non-commercial insurance package; and also that he would be able to change his insurance policy from commercial package to non-commercial package at the time of renewal of his 1^st insurance policy. Thus, for the observations made therein, the District Commission, Imphal passed order dated 22.07.2022 in favour of the Respondent directing the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 86,609/- (Rupees eighty six thousand six hundred and nine only) with the detailed breakup which is listed below, with further direction that the said payment was to be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order.

5.         Details of compensation:-

6.         Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Imphal, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal, alleging that the said Maruti Super Carry vehicle is a commercial vehicle/mini truck and it cannot be converted into a non-commercial vehicle by the Maruti Agent/Dealer. Further, it has been contended by the Appellant that the insurance policy of the said vehicle was provided by “The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd.”, through the “Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., which is opened by the  Maruti Suzuki Company and under this Maruti Insurance Broking Ltd., many insurance companies, including “The New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd.” functions/works for the convenience of the consumers/owners of Maruti Suzuki vehicles, providing coverage of insurance policies. Hence, it has contended that Maruti Insurance Broking Ltd. is not an insurance company and that Maruti Suzuki can do nothing against the procedures instructed by the respective insurance companies. It has also been contended as a ground of appeal that the said “New India Assurance Company Pvt. Ltd.” is a necessary party and that it must have also been impleaded into the Complaint Case No. 6 of 2021, it has been alleged that there is defect of parties. Also, it has been alleged that there is no record in the office of the Appellant or in the office of the workshop of Appellant, with regard to any claim made by the Respondent. Thus, for the grounds stated in the Appeal, it has been prayed that the said impugned order was passed by the District Commission, arbitrarily, against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7.         Having heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and upon careful perusal and minute examination, the following points of determination are framed in order to arrive at a judicial finding summed up in a precise and concise manner:

1) Whether the Respondent approached the Appellant to register the vehicle under private vehicle category and insured with a non-commercial policy package at the time of purchase? If so, whether the Respondent would be entitled to the insurance benefits?

2) Whether the insurance companies as said are necessary parties or not?

FINDINGS

8.         Point of determination no.1

            Before the District Commission, the Respondent stated that he had briefed thoroughly to the Appellant about his wishes for a registration of the said vehicle under private vehicle category since the purpose of the vehicle was solely for personal use and a non-commercial insurance policy since there was no need for the commercial package at the time of the purchase. It was submitted before the District Commission that all the documentations like registration certificate, insurance of the vehicle were handled by the Appellant’s office on behalf of the Respondent as a service provider since he had limited knowledge regarding the above stated documentations. However, to the utter surprise of the Respondent an insurance policy of a commercial package which the Respondent did not desire and was not compatible with the purpose of his usage was issued by the Appellant. When the Respondent made a verbal complaint to the Appellant regarding the issue, he was told that he would be entitled with both the benefits of commercial and non-commercial policy package and was assured that he would be able to change the policy package at the time of renewal after the expiry of the first insurance policy. At the time of the renewal, the Appellant deliberately again issued a commercial policy package against the request of the Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent was denied of any insurance benefits during the subsistence of the 2^nd policy due to non-production of route permit, fitness certificate etc which were not issued to a private vehicle. Thus, the Respondent had to incur all the repairing charges of the said vehicle at a private workshop amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) from his own source. In order to avoid further complicacies on the expiry of the 2^nd insurance policy, the Respondent himself approached the National Insurance Company, Imphal Division Office and got insured his vehicle under non-commercial policy package.

8.1       The Appellant did not deny such averments of the Respondent before the Ld. District Commission by filing his written version or by adducing evidence. Thus, it would be presumed that the Appellant has admitted the averments of the Respondent though the Appellant has denied such averments in his Memo of Appeal. It is settled law as per the provisions of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that admitted facts need not be proved.

            In view of the discussion above, it is held that the Respondent on the basis of the affidavit and documentary evidence thereof on record, has proved that the Appellant has misguided the Respondent by insuring the vehicle in question under commercial policy package of insurance. Thus, subject to the findings in the remaining point of determinations it is held that the District Commission has rightly held that such act of misguidance thereby insuring the vehicle under commercial policy package thereby depriving the Respondent from availing the insurance benefits would amount to “unfair trade practice”.

8.2       The said vehicle is a non-transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(h) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 having a gross vehicle weight of 1.6 tonnes which would be considered as a light motor vehicle. Even though the class of the vehicle falls under goods carrier, the said vehicle would be considered as a private service vehicle which falls under the type of motor vehicles as mentioned in Column 2 of the Table under the sub-section 4 of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 because it was declared to be used by the Respondent solely for personal purpose and not for carrying goods.

            The said vehicle could be insured with a non-commercial policy package as desired by the Respondent from the very first year since the Respondent clearly stated that it would be used for personal purposes and not for business purposes. A consumer has every right to choose the type of service according to the suitability of the consumer which has been violated by the Appellant. It was not an absolute necessity for the Appellant to provide the Respondent’s vehicle to be insured with a commercial policy when the Respondent put up a request for a non-commercial policy. Therefore, it is held that the Appellant has violated the “consumer rights” of the Respondent as provided  under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and also the Appellant had practiced “unfair trade practices” as  defined in Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on their part and thus the Appellant be rightly held liable for the same.

8.3       The Respondent was denied of the insurance benefits during the subsistence of the 2^nd year insurance policy when claimed on the grounds of non-production of documents such as route permit, fitness certificate etc. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. –vs- M/s Rash Builders Civil Contractors and Suppliers, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir observed that since the vehicle was not used for commercial purposes and was being moved for safe custody after purchase, no route permit was necessary. The Court held, “If the vehicle was used without carrying passengers or goods for which it was meant to be used, but merely was being shifted from one place to another place…. the requirement of a route permit does not apply.” On the issue of the fitness certificate, the Court emphasized that for a newly purchased vehicle, the fitness certificate is deemed to be included in the temporary registration certificate. The Court declared, “Fitness certificate would be implicit in the temporary registration certificate issued to a brand new vehicle.” The Court held that the grounds cited by the insurance company- lack of registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate for the vehicle involved in an accident – were not valid.

            Hence, this Commission comes to the point that the denial of the insurance benefits to the Respondent by the Appellant on the grounds of non-production of the documents such as route permit, fitness certificate is not valid. It has been held that the Appellant has committed “deficiency” as mentioned in Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on their part and thus be held liable for the same.

9.         Point of determination no.2

            The “Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.” is an insurance service provider under Section 2(C)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said service provider is ought to provide every brief explanation regarding the service to be provided under the instructions and procedures of the respective insurance companies. Hence, the insurance companies cannot be held as necessary parties since an effective order could be passed without impleading the insurance companies as parties in the Complaint case.

The contention of the Appellant that the staff of the Eastern Motors explained the Respondent about the insurance policy and the Respondent on his own accord took the commercial insurance policy package has no substance in as much as the same were not pleaded before the District Commission and also in view of the averment of the Respondent that the said staff of the Appellant were not working as the employees at the relevant time of purchase of the said vehicle. Despite ample opportunities being given by the Ld. District Commission, the Appellant neglected the summons of the Commission and did not file written version/written arguments denying such averments submitted by the Respondent.

9.1       Nothing has been disclosed or presented by the Appellant in his memo of  Appeal to lead this Commission to conduct a thorough study as to whether there has been any discrepancy with regard to the communication made between the Respondent and the staff working under the control and supervision of the Appellant. Mere statement by the said staff of the Appellant that the insurance cover/policy can be updated from Commercial Package to non-commercial package only conveys that the Appellant had misled and misguided the Respondent, giving false assurances. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Appellant violated the Respondent’s Consumer Rights as provided under Section 2(9)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            Thus, it is held that the insurance companies are not necessary parties in the Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

10.       In view of the discussion above, this Commission is of the considered view that the Appeal is devoid of any merit and there is no illegality in the Judgment and order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned District Commission, Imphal in Consumer Complaint No.6 of 2021. In our view, the impugned order is based on correct appreciation of the materials on record and does not call for any interference by this Commission in its Appellant jurisdiction. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed for want of merit and the impugned order accordingly is upheld.

            There would be no order as to costs.

11.       Announced in the Open Court. Let this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.

12.       The Registry is directed to send back the case records of Complaint Case No. 6 of 2021 to the District Commission, Imphal along with a copy of this order for information and doing the needful.