ABHIJIT NANDY Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 18.3.96 passed by the District Forum, Calcutta in CDF Case No.2068/ 93. The District Forum, Calcutta has dismissed the complaint petition without any cost inter alia upon observation that on anxious examination of the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Forum holds that the dispute raised by the complainant/appellant is not a consumer as per decided principle and so he is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell is that by virtue of an advertisement published in the "statesman" dated 21st November, 1988 inviting tender for disposal of one Taxi (Ambassador of 1987 Model) on "as is where is basis" for which the complainant/appellant submitted its tender at Rs.41,000/- which was paid by the complainant/appellant by way of earnest money and final payment of the same and the said Taxi was delivered by the opposite party /insurance Company on 11.1.89. The complainant/appellant received the said Taxi by issuing a receipt to the opposite party. After taking delivery, the complainant/appellant caused it to repair by spend ing about Rs.61,000/- at the garage of Nahar Singh of 15, Lock Gate Road, Calcutta 2. The taxi was repaired thoroughly time and again and was ready finally for delivery in March, 1992. The said Nahar Singh the repairer of the Taxi claimed garage rent and protection charge from May 1989 considering 3 months repairing time and cost of repairing as Rs.61,000/- after repairing for the Taxi cab. The complainant/appellant several times requested the opposite party to issue a sale letter and handed over all other relevant documents for mutation of his name with the R. T. A. Calcutta but no reply was given by the opposite party. Again the complainant/ appellant wrote a letter on 13.11.92 to the Assistant General Manager, of the Insurance Company and afterwards the Divisional Manager issued a letter dated 26.2.93 and sent a certificate but neither the sale letter nor the related documents in connection with the taxi was given to the complainant/appellant for which he could not mutate his name as owner with the R. T. A. Calcutta and to put it in use. As the complainant/ appellant could not take the delivery of the Taxi from the garage of the Nahar Singh the repairer, he started to charge garage rent and protection charge grom May 1989 and till filing the complaint petition he charged Rs.33,750/- from May, 1989 to April, 1993 at the rate of Rs.750/- per month as alleged by the complainant/appellant.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, the complainant/appellant lodged a complaint before the District Forum, Calcutta claiming Rs.3,50,200/- on account of alleged garage rent and protection charges from May, 1989 and for loss of income at the rate of Rs.200/- per day from May, 1989 to August, 1993 and on account of cost of incidental charges for the proceeding.