New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs ABHIJIT NANDY

REVISION Petition No. 900/96 has arisen out of the order dated 30.7.96 passed by the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Case No. 158/A/95 setting aside the order passed by the District Forum, Calcutta and directing the respondent-Insurance Company to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,88,100/- to the appellant-complainant before them towards damages and other charges within a month of their order and with 18% interest in the event of non-compliance of their order. The OP in the original complaint before the District Forum is the revision petitioner before us and the complainant is the respondent.

FACTS of the case may be briefly stated. The complainant purchased from the OP a damaged/accidental taxi by paying Rs. 41,000/- in response to a press advertisement given by the OP for disposal of the said taxi (Ambassador of. 1987 model) on "as is where is basis". After taking delivery, the complainant reportedly spent Rs. 61,000/- for its repairs at a garage. Meanwhile in spite of several requests by the complainant to the OP to issue the sale letter and hand over the relevant documents pertaining to the taxi so that the ownership can be transferred in his name, the OP only issued a certificate of disposal on 26.2.1993. As the complainant could not take delivery of the said taxi from the repairer''s garage, the latter allegedly started charging garage rent and protection charge from May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 3,50,200/- mainly representing garage rent and protection charges from May, 1989 and loss of income at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from May, 1989 to August, 1993. The case which was first decided by the District Forum in favour of the complainant ex-parte for non-appearance of the OP was remanded to the District Forum by the State Commission when that order was appealed against. The points raised by the OP pertained to, (i) limitation (ii) maintainability, and (iii) locus standi of the complainant vis-a-vis the person who effected the said purchase from the OP. It was contended by the OP that at no point of time they were the owners of the vehicle nor they became transferee or the agent of the registered owner, one Mr. Paramjit Singh with whom the OP Insurance Company had settled the claim as total loss of the taxi and taken possession of the same, that the salvage was sold on "as is where is basis" and that the purchaser had free access to inspect it including the documents before taking delivery. It was further contended by the OP that what was sold was salvage and not a motor vehicle and that the sale of salvage is governed by the Sale of Goods Act and not the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this, the OP had no obligation to provide transfer of ownership documents to the complaint. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute was not a consumer dispute, that the complainant is also not a consumer as per decided principles and that therefore he is not entitled to get any relief.

While considering the appeal filed by the complainant against this order of the District Forum, the State Commission held that (i) the complaint was not time barred as the cause of action arose on 26.2.93 when the alleged certificate of sale was issued by the Insurance Company and the complaint was filed on 20.8.93, and (ii) the Insurance Company never sold salvage of a taxi in terms of the advertisement in the press dated 21.11.88. The State Commission observed that had it been really salvage of the taxi, it would not have fetched the price of Rs. 41,000 /- when a second hand Ambassador-car was available within a price range of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. It was further noted that in the record of the RTA, Calcutta the registration of taxi was still maintained as taxi; had it really been salvage of taxi, the Insurance Company and Mr. Paramjit Singh should have got the registration cancelled with RTA before publication of sale of taxi as salvage as alleged. The Commission therefore did not give credence to the OP''s contention that only the salvage of taxi was sold.

THE Commission held that the complainant was a consumer as the complainant had paid a consideration for the purchase of taxi from the Insurance Company and that the transaction involved some element of service. Insofar as the Insurance Company failed to arrange to deliver the relevant documents to the complainant, there was deficiency of service on their part. In the light of these facts, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,88,100/- comprising Rs. 5,23,600/- towards damages for loss of income at Rs. 200/- per day from May, 1989 to June, 1996 and Rs. 64,500/- towards costs of garage rent and protection charges from May, 1989 to June, 1996 at Rs. 750/- per month. Aggrieved by this order of the State Commission the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition before us. The'' revision petitioner has not advanced any fresh points. We have carefully gone through the records and heard the Counsel for the parties. It appears that the respondent-complainant intended to run it as a taxi and earn income. The revision petitioner has, however, not taken any steps to transfer the registration documents of the taxi in the name of the respondent-purchaser and to this extent, deficiency in service can be noticed. We agree with the State Commission that due to the aforesaid deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company, the respondent could not use the vehicle for earning income. At the same time, we do not find sufficient basis for the State Commission''s assessment of loss of income. However, the respondent complainant has produced letter from the repairer charging him Rs. 61,000/- for repairs and Rs. 33,750/- for garage rent and protection charges from May 1989 to April, 1993. We are of the opinion that the respondent has not only spent on repairs and other associated items but was also put to a good deal of mental agony and harassment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the revision petitioner herein to repay to the respondent-complainant the sum of Rs. 41.000/- that they had collected from him along with interest of 18% per annum from the date of the transaction till date of repayment and also pay to him a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only by way of compensation towards repairs and other related expenses of the garage and for mental coverage is claimed to be Rs. 3,98,000/-, so the petitioner is entitled to recover from opposite parties 1 and 2 an amount of Rs. 3,98,000/- (three lakhs ninety eight thousand) as the repairing charge and as the amount has not been paid within time it will carry an interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this case before the Commission until payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to a damage of Rs.15,000/- for loss suffered by her in the absence of the vehicle. The petitioner is also entitled to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 for this proceeding. Revision petition disposed of.