SANTOSH SINGH Vs. MANAGER MANGALAM MOTORS & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 6.1 1.08. passed by District Consumer - Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for shorti, in complaint case No. 85/ 07, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, in respect of'deficiency in service and for compensation of Rs.6,43.167. has been dismissed, holding that no deficiency in service has been established

(2.) IN nutshell the facts of the case are that the appellant herein has purchased a Tata 1109 truck from respondent No.1, who on account of Holi festival, in order to promote sale, had assured that discount of Rs.35,000 would be provided on the aforesaid purchase of truck and the insurance, registration, fitness, permit etc. will be on cost of the seller and facility of 90'/ finance will also be arranged. On this assurance the appellant deposited Rs.5,000 against the value of the truck and then the truck was handed over to the appellant by respondent No.1 along with an insurance certificate dated 10.3.06. Expenditure of insurance was borne by respondent No. 1 and it was assured that R.C. Book, fitness, permit would be provided soon. Initially finance was to be arranged from Magma Leasing Company, but later on that Company had refused to provide finance, then another Finance Company, namely Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., respondent No.2 was contacted, which agreed to provide finance @ 4.9% p.a. interest, to be repaid in four years. Then respondent No. 1 gave a statement of calculation, in which registration and insurance etc. charges were added and the rebate of Rs.35,000 was not allowed and thus, demanded Rs.33,625. Statement of calculation of Rs.8,63,451 was given to him which was contrary to the agreed terms. In the meantime the truck was running. During the period from March, 2006 to July, 2006, Rs.80,000 was also deposited. Then, on 18.5.06, the vehicle met a road accident. Claim was preferred by the appellant before insurance company, respondent No.3 and the vehicle was brought for repairing in the shop of respondent No.1, which suggested for replacement of few parts. Some parts and the cabin were replaced, but the vehicle was retained by respondent No.1. Claim was also not accepted by the insurance company, as the registration certificate, fitness, permit were not provided by the insured, whereas as per case of the complainant, it was the duty of respondent No.1 to provide these documents in time. Thus, alleging deficiency in service against all the three respondents, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.

(3.) IN reply, all the three OPs have refuted the allegation of deficiency in service. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned it averred that there were defaults in payment of installments. Respondent No.3, insurance company has averred that the vehicle was being run without registration, fitness, permit etc. so the claim was not payable and the defence of respondent No.1 was that the truck was given to the complainant only after receiving Rs.5,000 and the insurance charges Rs. 17,425/ - were also paid by respondent No.1 at that time. The complainant was to get the vehicle registered and to obtain permit etc. from the outside and had not paid any charges for these acts to respondent No.1. After accident, on the request of complainant, respondent No.1 helped him and the vehicle was registered in his name, permit was also obtained, thus there was no deficiency in service. So far as payment is concerned, even the repairing bill of the vehicle was not paid by the complainant and the cheque issued by him was dishonoured by the Bank, then, just to save himself from criminal proceedings in this regard, he filed this false complaint.