RAM KUMAR DEWANGAN vs MANAGER, PAL BODY WORKS

Challenge in these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), is to the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. FA/13/206 and FA/13/220, preferred by the Opposite Party and the Complainant respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party and set aside the order dated 19.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Raipur, Chattisgarh (in short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 38/2009, preferred by the Complainant, Revision Petitioner herein. The Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed and consequently the Complaint filed by him before the District Forum also stood dismissed.

Since both the Revision Petitions arise out of the same impugned order and the parties are also same, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

The brief facts, as stated in the Complaint, are that the Revision Petitioner/Complainant had taken the subject vehicle to the workshop of the Respondent/Opposite Party for body repair and repair of certain other defects on 15.01.2008 and it was agreed that the vehicle would be repaired for 24,000/-, out of which the Complainant had paid the amount of 4,000/-. After 15 days, when the Complainant had visited the workshop to take his vehicle, he observed that the repair work had not even started and it was assured by the Manager of the Opposite Party that the job would start within 2-3 days. Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party several times but found that his vehicle was kept in an open place and the chassis was also separated for last many months. The vehicle was left in dirt for the last one year, because of which the tyres, wooden plates, iron, wiring, battery etc. were damaged. The Complainant pleaded that he had sent letters dated 20.03.2008, 02.05.2008, 13.07.2008, 22.11.2008 and 01.12.2008 to the Opposite Party through his driver and also sent a legal notice to them on 30.10.2008 and 26.11.2008, requesting for early repair of the vehicle, as the non-usage of the vehicle was causing a loss of 15,000/- per month. Despite repeated visits and requests, the Opposite Party did not repair the vehicle for more than one year, because of which, the Complainant suffered lot of mental agony and loss.

Hence, the Complaint before the District Forum, seeking a direction to the Opposite Party to repair the vehicle and pay to the Complainant an amount of 1,65,000/- for 11 months as the vehicle was lying with the Opposite Party together with compensation of 50,000/- and costs of 5000/-.

The Opposite Party filed their written version before the District Forum, admitting that the Complainant had paid the amount of 4000/- on 15.01.2008, but denied that they had given any estimated expenditure towards the repairs of the vehicle for 24,000/-. It is averred that the Complainant was informed that the final estimate would be given only after inspection of the subject vehicle by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company. The Complainant had not brought the Surveyor for inspection and no instructions were received to repair the vehicle. The Opposite Party pleaded that after taking the vehicle from them, the Complainant had taken the same to Jayka Automobiles for further repairs and denied that the vehicle was kept with them for a long period of one year. The vehicle was repaired and at the time of delivery, the Complainant had paid the whole amount of repairs and received the vehicle to his full satisfaction and, therefore, there was no deficiency of service on their behalf.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint in part, directing the Opposite Party to pay 1,10,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from 07.01.2009 together with 20,000/- towards compensation and 2000/- as litigation costs. While allowing the Complaint in part, the District Forum observed that it is the responsibility of the Opposite Party to handover the vehicle to the Complainant when it is left with them for repairs and held that the Opposite Party was deficient in service and that the transaction of the Complainant with one Mr. Ajay is an exclusive dispute between them. The Opposite Party had to return the vehicle to the Complainant only, which they had not done.

Aggrieved by the said order, both the Complainant and the Opposite Party filed their separate Appeals before the State Commission and the State Commission, as noted above, while allowing the Appeal preferred by the Opposite Party and setting aside the order of District Forum, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant. While doing so, the State Commission observed as follows:

"14. O.P., Paul Body Works submitted questionnaire to the complainant and the complainant gave answers to question no.1 that on the date of incident the complainant was the owner of the vehicle but he did not know at present who is owner of the said vehicle and he admitted that prior to 15.01.2008, an agreement was executed on 01.01.2008.

The said vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period from 17.12.2007 to 16.12.2008. In the insurance policy, the Insured Declared Value (henceforth called "IDV" for short) of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.2,65,000/- and according to the complainant he had already received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from Ajay Dewangan. It appears that amount more than the I.D.V. of the vehicle was received by the complainant from Ajay Dewangan. The agreement was executed by the complainant himself in favour of Ajay Dewangan and looking to the agreement it appears that the complainant transferred the ownership of the vehicle to Ajay Dewangan, therefore, at the time of incident, the complainant was not owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 04-C-5030.

Learned District Forum, awarded Rs.1,10,000/- towards remaining cost of the vehicle. The finding recorded by the District Forum, is apparently illegal, because in the document filed by complainant i.e. insurance policy in which I.D.V. of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.2,65,000/- and learned District Forum assessed the value of the vehicle as Rs.4,10,000/-. Therefore, the finding is apparently illegal, so, the finding recorded by learned District Forum, is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant is not entitled to receive remaining cost of the said vehicle i.e. Rs.1,10,000/- from the O.P. Paul Body Works, therefore, the appeal No. FA/13/206 filed by the O.P. Paul Body Works, is liable to be allowed and appeal No. FA/13/220 filed by the complainant, Ramkumar Dewangan, is liable to be dismissed."

Dissatisfied with the said order, the Complainant has preferred the present Revision Petitions.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Complainant and the Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that as on the date of the accident, i.e. on 12.01.2008, the subject vehicle was registered with the Chhattisgarh Transport Department in his name and placed reliance on a copy of the ownership details as maintained by the Chhattisgarh Transport Department. The said document shows that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the Complainant from 19.12.2003 to 27.05.2010.

Learned Counsel for the Complainant further submitted that despite several requests, the Opposite Party neither repaired the vehicle nor returned it to him. He contended that the Insurance Company is not a party before the State Commission and that the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle should not be a criterion to decide the case and that the so called transaction between one Mr. Ajay and the Complainant is not a subject matter of the case.

The State Commission has observed that the IDV is 2,65,000/- and that the Complainant received 3,00,000/- from one Mr. Ajay and that the Complainant had received more than the IDV of the vehicle. The State Commission also observed that the agreement executed by the Complainant himself in favour of Mr. Ajay shows that the Complainant transferred the ownership of the vehicle to Mr. Ajay. The State Commission further held that the District Forum had wrongly assessed the value of the vehicle at 4,10,000/- when it was only 2,65,000/- and, therefore, set aside the order of the District Forum.

Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the prayer of the Complainant was to repair the vehicle whereas the State Commission has gone into the agreement executed between the Complainant and one Mr. Ajay and set aside the order of the District Forum. He also drew our attention to the Goods Carriage Permit (GCP) No. 41/652/03, in which the permit''s validity was from 20.12.2003 to 19.12.2008.

Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant had already received the amount of 3,00,000/- as he had sold the vehicle to one Mr. Ajay and that he is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of filing of the Complaint and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file the same.

The Complainant has filed before this Commission the Chhattisgarh Transport Department certificate, in which it is stated that the Complainant was the owner of the vehicle from 19.12.2003 to 27.05.2010, which evidences that the Complainant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of cause of action. The Complainant has also filed receipt dated 15.01.2008 issued by the Opposite Party for an amount of 4000/-. In the said receipt, it is stated that total cost for repairing the vehicle was agreed to be 24,000/- and that the vehicle would be repaired within 15 days.

There is also a receipt dated 12.05.2009, stating that one Mr. Ajay Kumar Dewangan got the delivery of the vehicle by paying the remaining amount of 10,000/-. This receipt is also issued by the Opposite Party, Pal Body Works. This evidences that the vehicle was indeed given by the Complainant to the Opposite Party on 15.01.2008 for effecting repairs on the vehicle No. CG 04 C 5030, which was delivered to one Mr. Ajay Dewangan on 12.05.2009. The Complainant has also filed the series of correspondence between him and the Opposite Party dated 20.03.2008, 04.04.2008, 13.07.2008, 30.10.2008, 22.11.2008 and 01.12.2008, requesting the Opposite Party to repair the vehicle and return it to the Complainant.

The State Commission has taken into consideration the IDV of the vehicle and the agreement between the Complainant and Mr. Ajay and has concluded that the District Forum had wrongly assessed the value of the vehicle at 4,10,000/-. There is no evidence on record to establish that the value of the vehicle was 4,10,000/-. While the State Commission has not committed any irregularity in taking the IDV of the vehicle into consideration while assessing the value of the subject vehicle, the act of the Opposite Party in keeping the vehicle with them for more than a year and handing over the same to one Mr. Ajay Dewangan amounts to deficiency of service, for which the Complainant is entitled to some reasonable compensation of Rs.40,000/- to meet the ends of justice. This amount is being awarded as the vehicle was lying with the Opposite Party for more than a year and the Complainant underwent mental agony in the absence of any reply/response from the Opposite Party, despite several letters written by him, and also having regard to the fact that the Opposite Party had delivered the vehicle to a third party.

Taking into consideration, all the aforementioned reasons, I find it a fit case to award an amount of 40,000/- as compensation and further an amount of 5,000/- towards litigation costs, which shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, these Revision Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.