SEETAL AUTOMOBILES Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA MAHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Seetal Automobiles, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar is the appellant in this appeal, which arises out of C.D. Case No. 117 of 1996, the complaint filed by one Krushna Chandra Maharana, where this appellant was opposite party No. l and opposite party No. 2 is the General Manager, Ferrochrome Plant, Jajpur. The order of the District Forum, Jajpur dated 28.5.1998 in the said CD case is under challenge in this appeal. In the said CD case, the District Forum while allowing the dispute of the complainant directed opposite party No. l / appellant here to pay a sum of rupees 2,000 towards financial loss and mental agony to the complainant within three months, failing which the amount shall carry interest @18% per annum. However, the dispute is dismissed as against the opposite party No. 2 -Ferrochrome Plant.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Kinetic Honda Scooter on 13.7.1995 under hire purchase scheme from this appellant - M/s. Seetal Automobiles through General Manager, Ferrochrome Plant - opposite party No. 2 as per terms and conditions of the quotations. It was specifically mentioned in the quotation that insurance premiums for first, second and third year are included in the price quotation and the opposite party No. l would take risk for renewal of the insurance for the second and third year. It is alleged by the complainant that despite his repeated requests and correspondences, the opposite party No. l had not taken any steps for renewal of the insurance for second and third year, though instalments were being deducted from his salary. As because, the insurance was not renewed for second and third year, he could not use the scooter, which caused mental agony as well as financial loss. The inaction of the opposite party No. 1/appellant amounts to deficiency in service, for which complainant claimed compensation of rupees 10,000.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 1 appeared through his Counsel and filed written version admitting the purchase of scooter by the complainant under hire purchase scheme and denied any other liability. It has pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement, the complainant is to produce the vehicle and previous year insurance certificate for renewal of the insurance and in spite of repeated requests when the complainant did not produce the insurance paper, the insurance for third year was not renewed, but the insurance for second year was renewed under intimation to the complainant and opposite party No. 2 his employer. According to him, since there is no deficiency in service, the dispute is liable to be dismissed.