T.C.KHOSLA vs 1st MARUTI LEASING INC

BRIEFLY, the facts are that Opposite Party No. 1 (O.P. 1) is carrying on business as a broker. They arrange finances and new cars. Opposite Party-2 is the Oriental Insurance Co. and Opposite Party-4 is the Citi Bank. Opposite Party-3 was the owner of a Maruti Van No. DL 3 CA-4466. Opposite Party1 arranged sale of said Maruti Van belonging to Opposite Party-3 in favour of the complainant. They arranged loan of Rs. 1,01,871/- from Opposite Party-4. The price of the car according to the invoice was Rs. 1,16,771/-. However, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,41,005/- as the sale price of the car. This amount included insurance premium for a period of one year. The car was sold to the complainant on 23.11.90. The car was stolen on 10.6.92. He filed a claim before Opposite Party-2. It is alleged that they offered rupees one lac to him which he declined. Consequently, he filed a complaint.

THE complaint has been contested by the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party-1 has interalia pleaded that they acted as a broker between the complainant and Opposite Party-3 and therefore, they were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Opposite Party-2 pleaded that they were ready to reimburse the complainant according to the terms of the policy. Opposite Party-3 did not appear to contest the case. Opposite Party-4 in their written statement stated that an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was due as on 5.10.94, from the complainant to them and, therefore, they were entitled to get the insurance amount from Opposite Party-2. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the Opposite Party-1 is liable to pay any amount to the complainant. It is contended by Mr. Sharma, Counsel for complainant, that Opposite Party-1 arranged for second hand car for the complainant and therefore, whatever loss is suffered by him they are liable to re-imburse the same. On the other hand Mr. Mahajan, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-1 has argued that Opposite Party-1 was working as a broker and he arranged the sale of the car from Opposite Party-3 and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a decision of N.C. in Kuldeep Singh Kalra & Anr. v. Roshan Lal Pal & Anr., II (1993) CPJ 170 (NC). In that case the Opposite Party had acted as a middle man who brought the buyers and sellers of the cars together, and received his commission for the service rendered. It was observed by the Commission that he was neither the buyer nor the seller of the property and it was not his function or responsibility to verify the title of the seller in the property. It was left to the buyer to verify and satisfy himself about the sellers title. It was further observed that, therefore, he cannot be deemed to be a trader as specified in Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act. The above observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the complainant has got no cause of action against Opposite Party-1.

The second question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to get the price of the car from Insurance Company (Opposite Party-2) and if so how much. Mr. Malik, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has very fairly conceded that the Insurance Company is ready to reimburse the complainant in terms of the policy on executing certain documents in their favour and transferring the vehicle in the name of the Insurance Company. In view of the concession of Mr. Malik it is to be determined, how much amount the Opposite Party-2 is liable to pay.

THE complainant has produced the invoice dated 9.10.90 of Gangotri Automobiles Ltd. in favour of Opposite Party-3, in which the price of the car is given as Rs. 1,16,771.35. He has further produced the break-up of Rs. 1,41,005.00, the price for which he purchased the car from Opposite Party-3. In addition to the price of the car he paid insurance premium, charges for number plate, hypothecation charges. Bank charges, finance charges and about Rs. 16,000/- as premium. THE car was insured for Rs. 1,16,771.35. If it is stolen, he is entitled to get at the most of the insured amount and not the additional amount paid for purchasing it. He used the car for more than one year and six months. Mr. Malik produced the conditions of the insurance wherein it is stated that if the vehicle is used between one and two years, depreciation @10% is deducted. The running of the car in Delhi, being the city of distances, is more than what normally is in other towns. Therefore, in our view, the Insurance Company is justified in deducting 10% as depredation on the price of the car. The amount of depreciation comes to Rs. 11,677.20. After deducting the amount of depreciation the price of the car comes to Rs. 1,05,094.15 say Rs. 1,05,100/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount.

THE complainant raised a loan from Citi Bank, Opposite Party-4 for purchasing the car and it has not been re-paid by him. THE Citi Bank, in their written statement, has claimed that the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was due to them as on 5.10.94. THEy have also a lien over the car. THErefore, they are entitled to receive the amount of compensation from the Insurance Company. The car was stolen on 10.6.92. However, the claim of the complainant was not settled expeditiously by the Insurance Company. It is alleged that they offered to pay the amount in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. However, they have not mentioned the exact amount. It is also not mentioned by them that they offered the amount unconditionally. Normally the payment is made by the Insurance Company subject to the condition that it is in full and final settlement. The complainant was not bound to accept the payment on such a condition. Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,05,100/- from 15.9.92 till 12.1.95 when the complainant refused to accept the money less than his claim without prejudice to his claim. Now the question that arises for determination is, to what interest the Insurance Company is liable to pay. In the facts and circumstances of the case we allow interest @15% p.a.

WE trust that after the payment is made to the Citi Bank by Opposite Party-2, they will work out how much amount is due to them from the complainant on that day. In case they have any excess amount with them they shall pay that amount to the complainant. Miss Sehgal has also agreed that the Bank will pay the excess amount to the complainant, if any.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct Opposite Party - 2 to pay the amount of Rs. 1,05,100/- with interest @15% p.a. from 15.9.92 till 12.1.95 within three months from the date of completing the formalities by the complainant failing which action shall be taken against them u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and they shall also be liable to pay further interest at the said rate from the date of the order till the date of payment. The complainant is directed to complete all the formalities and execute all the documents for transferring the vehicle in favour of the Insurance Company within a period of two months failing which action shall be taken against him u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/-. The amount of costs shall also be paid to the Citi Bank alongwith decretal amount. Complaint allowed with costs.