SUGRI DEEP Vs. BIMAL PRASAD PATTNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed by Sugri Deep S/o Late Bisi Deep seeking compensation of Rs. 20,84,987/- on various counts of deficiency in service by the opposite parties. The complaint was filed way back during the year 1998. The allegations against the opposite parties, a pair of husband and wife, the opposite party no. 1 Bimal Prasad Pattnaik being the Managing Director of M/s B. P. Motors (P) Ltd. and his wife opposite party no. 2 Anima Pattnaik claiming to be the Managing Director of M/s Sanchit Marg Pvt. Ltd. , are that after the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs. 1,16,468/- for a bus of Eicher make, which met with an accident after few months of its purchase on 01.01.1994, the opposite party no. 1 took away the vehicle alongwith the registration and other documents on the pretext of lodging a claim with the Insurance Company and thereafter never returned the vehicle nor the documents nor did they refund the amount paid by him. He alleged that it was a case of not only deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice as the vehicle in fact had not been hypothecated to M/s Sanchit Marg Pvt. Ltd. but the hypothecation was with the M/s Eicher Span Financial Services Ltd. , a fact which was withheld from the complainant all through.

(2.) When the complainant appeared in person to present his case for the first time before this Commission on 13th of September, 2007 this Commission seeing the circumstances of the case felt it appropriate to appoint an Amicus Curiae to properly present the complainant's case and assist this Commission in the matter. Accordingly, we appointed M/s Swati Bhushan Sharma as the Amicus Curiae on behalf of the complainant. During the intervening years, the opposite parties have filed their joint written version and opposed the complaint. Thereafter rejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant and evidence in the form of an affidavit has been laid. Similarly, the opposite parties have filed their evidence in the form of affidavit.

(3.) Since the vehicle in question had been insured by the opposite party no. 1 i. e. B. P. Motors (P) Ltd. and the complainant had specifically alleged that the vehicle and its documents were taken away for making a claim before the Insurance Company, this Commission had directed opposite party no. 1 to disclose on affidavit as to how much amount was received from the Insurance Company. Similarly, when the opposite parties had alleged that the complainant had earlier approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna for the same cause of action, thereby raising a preliminary objection that the complaint before this Commission was not maintainable being res judicata; this Commission had directed the complainant to file a copy of his complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kalahandi and the written version of the opposite parties. While the complainant has filed the earlier complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Forum, Kalahandi alongwith the written version of the opposite party no. 1, the opposite party no. 1 has failed to provide any information with regard to insurance claim despite ample time given to him. In the circumstances, this being a very old case, we proceed to decide the matter on the basis of available record/evidence.