DATE OF FILING : 17-10-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 23-11-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 20 -05-2013.
Santu Das,
Chengail Karuna Para, P.O. Chengail,
P.S. Uluberai, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711308.--------------------------------------------------------------------COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
1. Vedant Automotives Pvt. Ltd.
Uluberia Branch, NH – 6,
Banitabla Check Post, Uluberia, Howrah,
PIN – 711316.
2. The Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd.,
232, Bajaj Lokas Building ( 2nd floor ),
Kolkata – 7000 20.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited,
69, Ganesh Chandra Avenue ( 5 floor ),
Kolkata – 700013. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant Shri Santu Das, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,
1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 20,000/- and to pay an amount of Rs. 18,000/- for mental agony along with a litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Brief facts of the case is that complainant bought one motor cycle from O.P.
no. 1 on payment of Rs. 26,000/- as down payment availing himself of a financial assistance accorded by O.P. no. 2. And the said vehicle being no. WB 14E9762 of Bajaj Pulsar 150 Red CC was stolen on 12-10-2010 at mid night. The said car was insured under O.P. no. 3 upto 11-08-2011. Immediately on 13-10-2010, complainant lodged an F.I.R. with the local P.S. and from F.R.T. dated 24-02-2011, it is revealed that concerned
authority could not trace out the stolen motor cycle and the case was closed. And on basis of the complainant’s claim, O.P. no. 3 issued a cheque of Rs. 58,000/- in favour of O.P. no. 2, the financier of the said vehicle. Now alleging deficiency in service and being aggrieved, complainant filed this instant case against O.Ps.
Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed separate written version.
Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.P. no. 1, in its
written version vide para 5 has categorically stated that they have handed over the motor cycle in question, on receipt of entire cost price of the motor cycle and there is no deficiency on their part in this matter which is also true in our opinion. And O.P. no. 2 also in its written version vide para 3 stated that O.P. no. 1 has got no liability or responsibility towards the complainant in this matter. Vide para 4 of the written version, O.P. no. 2 has alleged that even in spite of receiving Rs. 58,744/- from O.P. no. 3, O.P. no. 2 is yet to receive some more amount for the said vehicle. O.P. no. 2 received the insurance amount on 30-03-2012 and on that date outstanding due was Rs. 75,656.63 in total to be received from the complainant. And as the vehicle was hypothecated with O.P. no. 2, O.P. no. 3 had rightly issued the cheque in favour of O.P. no. 2 and even that cheque was given by O.P. no. 3 to the complainant on his request. Upto this o,p. no. 2 is correct in its assessment. But in their written version vide para 6, O.P. no. 2 is claiming a further sum of Rs. 16,912.63 from the complainant showing a loss in the event of their financial assistance accorded to the complainant, that is not correct. They extended a loan to the tune of Rs. 64,512/-, complainant paid Rs. 1,792/- for four months. So, it comes to Rs. 1,792 X 4 = Rs. 7,168/- in total. From insurance company i.e. O.P. no. 3, O.P. no. 2 received Rs 58,744/-. So, in total O.P. no. 2 received Rs. 58,744 + Rs. 7,168 = Rs. 65,912/- for the said vehicle. And it is also to be considered that only after two months of the purchase of the said vehicle, it was stolen. O.P. no. 3, as per the terms of the policy, has issued the cheque in favour of the O.P. no. 2, financier. It is the law that unless and until the loan amount is repaid, the financier is the owner of the vehicle. And at the material point of time, O.P. no. 2 was the owner. But as O.P. no. 2 has received Rs. 65,912/- and they have also issued one NOC dated 28-04-2012 stating therein that they received the full loan amount, o.p. no. 2 is not at all entitled to encash any post dated cheques given by the complainant. From all the documents and papers, we don’t find any deficiency on the part of O.P. nos. 1 & 3. O.P. no. 2 by not returning the papers and documents to the complainant relating to the said vehicle, has committed deficiency on
their part. Accordingly, the case is dismissed against O.P. nos. 1 & 3 without cost and allowed in part against O.P. no. 2.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 146 of 2012 ( HDF 146 of 2012 ) is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 2 and dismissed without cost against O.P. nos. 1 & 3.
The O.P. no. 2 is directed to return papers and documents relating to the vehicle no. Bajaj Pulsar ISO Red C.C. WB 14E 9762 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order i.d., Rs 50/- per day shall be charged against them till actual receipt of those papers by the complainant.
The O.P. no. 2 is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
