HIND MOTOR LTD. Vs. SANGITA & ORS. OPPOSITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 88/2008, M/s. Hind Motors Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Sangita & Ors. by which, appeal was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Hanish Dhiman son of complainant/Respondent No. 1 Mrs. Sangita and brother of complainant/ respondent No. 2 Rohit Dhiman purchased a Bajaj Pulsar on 12.11.2004 from Petitioner/OP-4 - Hind Motors vide his whose copy is Annexure C-l. After its purchase, it was insured with respondent No. 4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide cover note, whose copy is Annexure C-2. The temporary certificate of registration was issued. He had applied for loan and had deposited Rs. 11,145 as down payment and Rs. 1,115 as insurance premium. Thereafter, the vehicle was delivered to him on 12.11.2004. Appellant had charged the amount for the insurance and for hypothecation whose receipt is Annexure C-4. It was next averred that on 15.11.2004 when Hanish Dhiman was going to Naina Devi for offering obeisance then his vehicle met with an accident with a Bus and he died. FIR bearing No. 145 dated 15.11.2004 was registered at Kotkehloor, Distt. Bilaspur whose copy is Annexure C-5. The copy of death certificate is Annexure C-6. After the death of Hanish Dhiman, the hypothecation of the vehicle could not be finalized. Ultimately the vehicle was transferred in the name of Pankaj, respondent No. 6. It was further averred that respondent No. 2 Rohit Dhiman lodged claim with the Oriental Insurance Co. which was rejected on 14.9.2005 on the ground that the vehicle was not registered in the name of deceased Hanish Dhiman. Copy of the letter is Annexure C-7. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP Nos. 1 and 2 resisted complaint and submitted that as sale certificate is in the name of Pankaj OP No. 6, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP Nos. 3 and 4 resisted complaint and submitted that they never agreed to provide any service to the complainant and insurance cover was issued by OP No. 2. They admitted sale of vehicle and receipt of amount, but denied any deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 5 submitted that vehicle was never transferred in the name of OP No. 6 and temporary registration number was supplied by OP Nos. 3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 6 did not appear and he was proceeded ex parte. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 1,00,000 and OP Nos. 3 and 4 to pay Rs. 1,00,000 and further directed OP Nos. 1 to 4 to pay Rs. 5,500 as cost of litigation to the complainant. OP No. 4 filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal partly and reduced compensation to Rs. 35,000 against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and they were proceeded ex parte.