New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs AKEEL

-CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 30.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties: "1. The respondents are ordered to pay Rs. 1,68,000 to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realisation. 2. The respondents are also ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 on account of mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of the present order."

PUT shortly, the facts of the case as can be gathered from the record are that in an auction held by the appellant-opposite parties on 20.12.1995 for the sale of accidental vehicles, the complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-29-D-7532, make Swaraj Mazda, Model 1991 bearing Engine No. SLCIG13443, Chassis No. 4 GM-0021216, conducted by the M/s. Rangi Lalls, authorised auctioneers and Valuers of the opposite parties, for Rs. 69,100 for which receipt dated 4.1.1996 was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant had to pay 6% sale tax on the purchase of the said vehicle. In this manner he paid total amount of Rs. 73,246. For collection of Registration Certificate and Route Permit of the said vehicle, the complainant was asked to contact the office of the opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, he approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 at New Delhi but he was asked to approach the office of opposite party No. 1 at Faridabad as relevant papers were lying in the said office. The opposite party No. 1 had also issued a letter dated 10.1.1996 addressed to the opposite party No. 1 to hand over the Form Nos. 29 and 30, along with Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant accordingly visited the office of the opposite party No. l and he was handed over the above stated documents but he was asked to contact the said office after 20-25 days as the Registration Certificate was not traceable. Accordingly, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 as directed but had expressed its inability to trace out the Registration Certificate and for that reason he was asked to approach the Registration Authority, Faridabad as the said certificate had been deposited by the opposite party No. l with the said authorities. The complainant then approached the Registration Authority, Faridabad but the Registration Certificate was not available with the said authorities. The complainant again contacted the office of the opposite party No. 2 and maintained that the Registration Certificate had already been deposited with the Registration Authority at Faridabad at the time of transferring the vehicle in the name of the opposite party No. 1. The complainant again contacted the Registration Authority, Faridabad but without any result. It is the further case of the complainant that on account of non-issuance of the Registration Certificate to the complainant, he could not ply the vehicle on road for commercial purpose after getting it repaired from February, 1996 upto the date of filing of the complaint and non-operation of the vehicle had further caused damage to the vehicle. In this manner he has suffered a total sum of Rs. 4,96,390, as per details mentioned in para No. 13 of the complaint. Accordingly, it was prayed that direction be given to the opposite parties to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the complainant along with interest @ 24% per annum. The claim was resisted by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant was supposed to take the delivery of the concerned vehicle from the concerned branch of the opposite parties at New Delhi because the vehicle in question was registered with the said branch and was in its custody. It was pleaded by the opposite parties that the opposite party No. 1 was only required to sign form Nos. 29 and 30, which were signed on 19.4.1996 and handed over to the complainant. It was further stated that the opposite parties had applied for getting duplicate Registration Certificate issued and they had obtained the duplicate Registration Certificate for doing the needful. They further raised the plea of locus standi; estoppel and non-maintainability of the complaint in the present form. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite parties and issued the directions in its order noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite parties. Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties have been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the case on behalf of the respondent-complainant.

There is no factual dispute with regard to the date of delivery of the duplicate Registration Certificate to the complainant. Admittedly, in this case the vehicle in question was sold in auction to the complainant on 20.12.1995 at the behest of the opposite parties. Thereafter, he had approached the opposite party No. 2 for obtaining Registration Certificate in order to enable him to ply the vehicle for commercial purpose, instead of making delivery of the Registration Certificate to him. He was made to visit time and again to the offices of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and that of Registration Authority, Faridabad, as noticed above. The said duplicate certificate was issued to the complainant on 2.6.1998 when the written statement was filed. In this manner the opposite parties had failed to deliver the Registration Certificate upto the period of two years and five months approximately and for that reason the complainant was not able to ply the said vehicle during this period.

AT the same time, the complainant has given the details of the damage worked out in para No. 13 of the complaint amounting to Rs. 4,96,390. It has been stated by him that he had to incur the repairs of the vehicle to make it roadworthy for Rs. 1,10,000. Manifestly, for this amount the opposite parties had no liability to pay because the vehicle in question was sold, as it was accidental vehicle and for that damage resulted in accident the opposite parties had no liability to pay for the repairs of the vehicle carried out by the complainant. Again the complainant has claimed interest @ Rs. 57,645 for the period February 1996 to October 1997 for 21 months @ 18% per annum on the above stated amount. The opposite parties cannot be allowed to burden the liability of interest in respect of the expenses incurred on the repairs of the vehicle on the above stated repairs. The complainant has further claimed damages @ Rs. 300 per day from February 1996 to October 1997 amounting to Rs. 1,89,000. In support of this stand the complainant has not been able to establish that he would have earned Rs. 300 per day by plying the vehicle during the period in question, if he had plied the vehicle. Even otherwise no claim for loss of earning can be made before the District Forum and the District Forum has totally overlooked this aspect while returning a finding in this regard. Needless to say in this case the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties for the period of three years and four months on account of non-delivery of the Registration Certificate issued to him. The opposite parties were duty-bound to deliver the Registration Certificate at the time when they had sold the vehicle to the complainant in order to enable him to get the Registration Certificate transferred in his name. Under the circumstances of the case, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The complainant is allowed Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses. Rest of the directions given in the impugned order are set aside. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is disposed of in terms of the above modification in the order of the District Forum. Appeal disposed of.