ORDER SHEET
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A & N ISLANDS
PORT BLAIR
Original/Appeal Case No 19 Of 99
Present: 1. Justice D.K. Basu(Retd.)
President,
State Commission
4. D.P. Mukhopadhyaya
Member,
State Commission.
Consumer Appeal Case No. 19 of 1999
Shri Satram,
S/O late Raja Ram,
R/O Sastri Nagar,
35 KM Campbell Bay,
Great Nicobar District …….Appellant
Vs
M/S TSG Automobile
C/O Shri Bhaskaran,
Behind ANIIDCO Petrol Pump,
Goal Ghar, Port Blair ……Respondent
Mr.K.Shankara Rao
Mr.Arul Prasath Kumar For Appellant
Ms Anita Hegde For Respondent
Consumer Appeal Case No.20 of 1999
Mr. G.Bhaskaran
M/S TSG Automobile
C/O Shri Bhaskaran,
Behind ANIIDCO Petrol Pump,
Goal Ghar, Port Blair ….Appellant
Vs
Shri Satram,
S/O late Raja Ram,
R/O Sastri Nagar,
35 KM Campbell Bay,
Great Nicobar District .....Respondent
Ms Anita Hegde For Respondent
Mr. G.B Baska ran
Mr.K.Shankara Rao
Mr.Arul Prasath Kumar For Appellant
Both the appeals are taken up analogously as Appeal Case No19of 1999 arose from complainant against Mr G.Bhaskaran of M/S TSG Automobiles appellant in the Appeal Case No.20 of 1999.
Instant appeal has arisen from an order dated 9th April, 99 passed by the Learned District Forum in C.D.Case No.14 of 1998 allowing CD. Case No.14 of 1998 partly in favour of the complainant/appellant in Appeal Case No.19 of 1999.
Epitome of the dispute is briefly as follows. The complainant, in Appeal Case No.19 of 1999 Shri Satram is a permanent resident of Campbell Bay, Great Nicobar District and by profession he is a contractor. The complainant/appellant had purchased a new Suzuki Motor Cycle from the shop/firm of the respondent on 28th April, 1993 for a sum of Rs.37,300/- bearing Registration No. An-01-A-1393. The complainant/appellant brought the said Suzuki Motor Cycle from Campbell Bay to Port Blair for repair as there was no dealer/agent of Suzuki Motor Cycle at Campbell Bay, and handed over the Motor Cycle to the respondent M/S TSG Automobile on 23.9.1996 for minor repairs, overhauling, painting and other jobs. The respondent had accepted the Motor cycle and assured to return the said vehicle within 15 to 20 days but did not return it for more than 3 months. It was the case of complainant/appellant that the respondent was given reminder on diverse dates to return the Motor Cycle but unfortunately, did not return the motor cycle. Admittedly the motor cycle was in a dismantle condition without any repair.
There was a fire accident on 28.12.1996 and the respondent declared that the appellant said motor cycle was gutted in the said fire accident.
Complainant/appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.48056/- from the respondent towards the value of the Suzuki Motor Cycle, other loss damages, causing mental agony etc. The learned District Forum allowed the complainant’s claim partly, in favour of the complainant/appellant to the extent of 50% of the value of the said vehicle and granted a sum of Rs. 19,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle and i.e 50% of the cost of the vehicle and allowed a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards the cost of litigation. Complainant/appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 9.4.1999 in C.D. Case No 14 of 1998 preferred the instant appeal No.19 of 1999 and at the same time, the Respondent preferred substantive appeal against the order of the learned District Forum in C.D. Appeal No.20 of 1999.
The Appellant/complainant Shri Satram filed a case in C.D. Case No.14 of 1998 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Port Blair under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the following reliefs.
(i) A direction upon the respondent M/S TSG Automobiles to supply/provide new vehicle of same model or to pay the cost of the vehicle.
(ii) Directing the respondent to pay the total loss, damage etc amount to Rs.48056/-.
(iii) Directing to pay the interest at the rate of 15% since November, 1996.
The respondent contested the case by filing written objection on the following ground, interalia,
1. The condition of TVS Suzuki Motor Cycle was so bad that the mediator was told that a considerable time can be required for bringing the same to the serviceable condition.
2. No permits were issued to complete the work within one month.
3. During rainy season, the painting work could not be done.
4. Chasis was found excessively damaged because of erosion.
5. Cause of acute shortage of gas awarding the carbynsisland chasis could not be set right.
6. Gas welding carbyns was not likely available.
7. The mediator was apprised of the practical difficulties.
8. The delay was intentioned
9. OP was very much in station and as such there was no question of refusing of return of vehicle.
10. On 28.12.1996, the said vehicle TVS Suzuki and other several property in the workshop in the OP are destroyed in the fire accident.
11. With a view to helping the complainant/appellant the respondent issued a certificate to him for making any shortage of claim before the authority.
12. The respondent was not responsible for causing any damage to the said vehicle
13. A job card issued dealing therein that the owner of the vehicle shall bear the cost of material, repairs spare parts liveries charges etc consequent upon effectual of the contractual repairs and that the dealers shall not be liable for any damage beyond his control.
14. Respondent spent about 4000/- for repair, painting, over hauling etc.
The Learned District Forum had considered the scheme of the parties and disposed of the complaint case by allowing the complaint partly by directing the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 19000/- having a basis of 50% valuation of the Motor cycle and also a consolidated cost of Rs. 1500/-. Thus total 20,500/-was
awarded against the claim of the complainant/appellant of Rs.48056/-.
The complainant/appellant admittedly is a respondent of Campbell Bay in the District of Great Microbar who could prosecute his complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent M/S TSG Automobiles through his lawyer but he was not satisfied with the order passed by the learned District Forum. The complainant/Appellant was required to embrace further litigation by filing an appeal. Admittedly the price of the vehicle was increased in the meantime and it transpires that the complainant/appellant would be required to spend more than 43,000/- for having a new Motor Cycle and the complainant/appellant after allowing depreciation of the vehicle could have got more than 20,500/- awarded amount. The learned District Forum ought to have considered that the respondent company, by keeping the vehicle in his custody, became a trustee and he could not ignore his obligation for keeping the motor cycle in safe and secure condition., Respondent/complainant had otherwise obligation to return the vehicle atleast in the same condition he had received after effecting repairs. Accordingly, the respondent was otherwise liable to return the vehicle or the cost of the vehicle and the quantum ought to have been fixed keeping in mind that the complainant/appellant was not interested in the vehicle so that he could use the motor cycle for his source of living and the complainant/appellant was not interested with the
• value of the Motor cycle as the motor cycle was damaged beyond repair and as the respondent had received Insurance claim from the Insurance Company in connection with the fire accident, the respondent company cant ignore their obligation to return the vehicle or cost of vehicle. Now as there was no opportunity to return the vehicle, the respondent M/S TSG Automobiles was required to compensate the claimant/appellant reasonably.
As both parties were aggrieved and as both the complainant/appellant and also respondent in C.D. Case No.14 of 1998 preferred an appeal against the quantum awarded by the learned District Forum. I have reason to believe that unless the dispute could be settled amicably between the parties by invoking the mechanism of conciliation, there will be no effective remedy. Parties were addressed by me for arriving at a settlement, So far the quantum is concerned, it cannot be ignored that if the dispute can be resolved amicably between the parties, both the parties will be satisfied and there will be no victor and neither there will be any vanquished.
Keeping this aspect in mind, a formula was suggested for arriving at an agreed quantum wherein the complainant/appellant had agreed to pay the respondent RS.26,432/- on the basis of the book value after calculating depreciation from the total cost of the motor cycle @Rs 10% for 3 and half years. As both the parties had accepted this formula for settlement, the respondent paid the amount by cheque of Rs.26,432/- drawn in favour of Shri Satram on Canara Bank, Port Blair in terms of order dated 19.1.2000. The amount was paid to Mr.K.Shankara Rao learned advocate for the appellant Appeal Case No. 19 of 1999. Shri Shankara Rao, advocate had accepted the cheque and issued a money receipt to Mr.G.Bhaskaran, Partner of TSG Automobiles. As the settle amount has been agreed and the complainant/appellant had received the amount as agreed upon by the parties to the tune of Rs.26, 432/-, no further order need be passed.
Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of without any order as to cost.
