BHIMA RAM Vs. MARUDHARA MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 186 of 2013 dtd. 8/10/2014 arising out of order dtd. 24/6/2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Jodhpur (in short, 'District Forum') in Complaint No. 523 of 2012.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner, are that he had purchased a light goods vehicle TATA Venture EXI for his livelihood on 25/10/2011 for Rs.4,48,000.00 from respondent no. 1. The vehicle was registered as RJ 04 UA 1979 and the petitioner paid Rs.16,999.00 for insurance and cover note no. 914988 was issued on 24/10/2011 to respondent no. 3. On 6/11/2011, after 11 days of purchase, the vehicle met with an accident and FIR No. 55/11 was filed in Police Station, Gadra Road, Barmer. The insurance company was informed who appointed a surveyor. The vehicle was handed over to M/s Marudhara Motors for repairs and Rs.15,000.00 was deposited with them subject to finalization of bill for repairs. It is stated that a bill was raised for Rs.3,31,065.00 and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.1,50,000.00 with the insurance company undertaking to pay the balance. Aggrieved by respondent 1 charging such a high amount for a vehicle that cost Rs.4.48 lakhs, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner contends that the vehicle had minor external scratches on the body-shell which did not warrant the replacement of the shell. It is contended that respondent no. 1 has been deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice in over charging the petitioner towards the repair work. The complaint was allowed against which respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal before the State Commission. After opportunity and hearing both parties, the State Commission affirmed the order of the District Forum. This order is impugned before us with the prayer that respondent no.1 handover the vehicle to the petitioner and this Commission pass any other order as deemed fit.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent contends that the petitioner has not made 'Tata Motors Finance Ltd' a party to this revision which amounts to misjoinder of parties since it was a necessary party. According to the respondent, the petitioner had registered the vehicle for private use and also accordingly had it insured as a private vehicle. However, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being used for a commercial purpose as a taxi as per the petitioner's own averment which was violative of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the terms of the insurance policy. It is, therefore, contended that the policy was rightly rejected by the respondent no. 2. It is also stated that the final report of the Surveyor, Sunil Mathur, dtd. 12/5/2012 had correctly assessed the loss at Rs.87,378.85. It is therefore prayed the revision petition be dismissed and the order of the District Forum be set aside.