MR LAXMI NARAYAN PADHI, PRESIDENT… The substance of case is that, the Complainant for his self employment had purchased a Tata Indigo ECS 1.4 LX BS III, bearing Regd.no. OD 10B 8719, engine no.4751DT 14 GVYP 27658 and chasis no. MAT 607341 EPG 17889 from the Way Automotives Pvt Ltd, Jeypore, dist of Koraput which was financed by OP.2 and the same covered under insurance policy by OP.3 & 4 vide policy no.55270031146160120728 on dt.28.9.14 for IDV of Rs.5,33,444/-. Unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident on dt.07.06.2015 and damaged the body and the fact was informed immediately to the OP.3 & 4 and the complainant claim an amount of Rs.21,454/- which was paid to its repair. But the OP.3 & 4 settled the claim amount for Rs.9700/- through their Sambalpur branch with advise to sign the receipt for the amount and to send it back to them so that payment of the amount will be to the OP.1 & 2 against the finance, which after due endorsement the complainant sent it back to the Sambalpur Branch of OP.4 through Fly King courier vide its consignment no.305530500 dt.28.11.15. But the complainant contends that, the amount so approved by the OP.3 & 4 has not till been credited to the finance account of OP.1 & 2 against the vehicle and the agents of OP.1 & 2 regularly calls the complainant for EMI so are outstanding and charges of OD and penal interest have been imposed to his loan account. He further contends that, the OP.1 & 2 being NBFC guided under RBI guidelines should provide all the agreement signed copies of papers to the customers, but they failed to do the same which is unfair and against the policy of sale of contract. The complainant so many times requested the agents of OP.1 & 2 to provide the copy of agreement and statement of his loan account but for no action made by the OP.1 & 2 and they kept the complainant in dark about his loan account. Hence the complainant inflicted mental agony and monetary losses due to the arbitrary action of OP.s, hence he craves the leave of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to comply all the above said claims along with a compensation and cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. The counsel for OP.3 & 4 has filed written version and stated that, when the complainant intimated them about his claim, they have deputed their surveyor who through procedure submitted his final report of Rs.9700/- and after survey the insured submitted the bills towards repair of the vehicle and after all they credited the above amount in the loan account of complainant at Tata Motor Finance on dt.04.12.15. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP.s, so he prayed to dismiss the case with cost.
3. On the other hand the counsel for OP.1 & 2 though appeared but failed to file any counter in the case, despite sufficient chances given to him within four months of its admission, hence they set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b) of the C.P.Act. The complainant has filed copy of invoices and insurance papers. The complainant heard the case at length, perused the record and submissions considered.
4. The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved and needy consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.
5. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant being an unemployed youth had procured the vehicle for his livelihood hence availed a loan from OP.1 & 2 but unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident on dt.07.06.2015 for which the complainant has incurred Rs.21,454/- towards its repair, and the complainant taken the facts to the notice of OP.3 & 4 within a reasonable time. As the complainant runs the vehicle for his livelihood and the same availed with a huge loan from the OP.1 & 2, it is obvious that the complainant living with EMI tensions. It is also seen that, from the date of hypothecation of the loan to till the date of disposal of this case, the OP.1 & 2 neither supplied the complainant any agreement copy nor statement of his loan account and kept the complainant in dark which amounts to deficiency in service.
6. On the other hand the OP.3 & 4 contending that they have credited Rs.9700/- at OP.1 & 2 as per report of surveyor to the loan account of complainant for final settlement but from the whole transaction and from the record we have seen that the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.21454/- towards the repair cost but ignoring various legal aspects the OP.3 & 4 has paid just Rs.9700/- which is nothing but unscrupulous and an intention to evade the legitimate dues of the complainant. Hence in our view we found the OP.s are guilty of deficiency in service and for the over action the complainant harassed with mental agony and monetary losses which could not be evaluated in terms of money. Hence we allowed the complaint against the OP.1, 2, 3 & 4.
O R D E R
i. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are severally & collaterally hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.
ii) The OP.no.3 & 4 are severally & collaterally hereby directed to pay Rs.11,754/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Seven hundred & fifty four) only as the balance repair cost of the alleged vehicle inter alia a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as compensation & cost of litigation to the complainant, for such deceptive practices, deficiency and willful negligence.
iii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Pronounced on 20th day of July' 2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
