NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ABHIJIT NANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 900/96 has arisen out of the order dated 30.7.96 passed by the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Case No. 158/A/95 setting aside the order passed by the District Forum, Calcutta and directing the respondent-Insurance Company to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,88,100/- to the appellant-complainant before them towards damages and other charges within a month of their order and with 18% interest in the event of non-compliance of their order. The OP in the original complaint before the District Forum is the revision petitioner before us and the complainant is the respondent.

(2.) Facts of the case may be briefly stated. The complainant purchased from the OP a damaged/accidental taxi by paying Rs. 41,000/- in response to a press advertisement given by the OP for disposal of the said taxi (Ambassador of. 1987 model) on "as is where is basis". After taking delivery, the complainant reportedly spent Rs. 61,000/- for its repairs at a garage. Meanwhile in spite of several requests by the complainant to the OP to issue the sale letter and hand over the relevant documents pertaining to the taxi so that the ownership can be transferred in his name, the OP only issued a certificate of disposal on 26.2.1993. As the complainant could not take delivery of the said taxi from the repairer's garage, the latter allegedly started charging garage rent and protection charge from May, 1989 at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 3,50,200/- mainly representing garage rent and protection charges from May, 1989 and loss of income at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from May, 1989 to August, 1993. The case which was first decided by the District Forum in favour of the complainant ex-parte for non-appearance of the OP was remanded to the District Forum by the State Commission when that order was appealed against.

(3.) The points raised by the OP pertained to, (i) limitation (ii) maintainability, and (iii) locus standi of the complainant vis-a-vis the person who effected the said purchase from the OP. It was contended by the OP that at no point of time they were the owners of the vehicle nor they became transferee or the agent of the registered owner, one Mr. Paramjit Singh with whom the OP Insurance Company had settled the claim as total loss of the taxi and taken possession of the same, that the salvage was sold on "as is where is basis" and that the purchaser had free access to inspect it including the documents before taking delivery. It was further contended by the OP that what was sold was salvage and not a motor vehicle and that the sale of salvage is governed by the Sale of Goods Act and not the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of this, the OP had no obligation to provide transfer of ownership documents to the complaint. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute was not a consumer dispute, that the complainant is also not a consumer as per decided principles and that therefore he is not entitled to get any relief.