Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Indus Motors

  1. #1
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default Indus Motors

    The complaint is filed for getting Rs.50,000/- for the difference of price in Model change, Compensation Rs.25,000/- and cost Rs.25,000/-

    The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

    The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Alto Car LX [Careebean] blue availing a loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from the State Bank, Karavaloor. As directed by the 2nd opp.party complainant had paid Rs.2750/- as booking charges. On that day itself he had paid the balance amount Rs.1,00,000/- excluding the loan amount. The opp.parties collected Rs.7569/- for insuring the vehicle and 15832 for road tax Rs.1200/- for registration Rs.1500/- for temporary registration and Rs.1790/- for extended warranty. The opp.parties made to believe the complainant that the vehicle is holding model of 2008. On 12.3.2008 the very same day on which the payment was made , 2nd opp.party handed over the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant returned back the vehicle because the doors of the said vehicle were damaged and there was some scratches in the painting. After repainting and rectifying the damages 2nd opp.party again handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 24.3.08.

    The counter foil of fees receipt for registration certificate and photocopy of insure certificate were paid to the complainant and assured that the certificate can be received within two weeks. It is stated in the Insurance Copy that the vehicle model in of2008. After 19.3.2008 the office staff of the 2nd opp.party had taken the vehicle so many times for the purpose of registration.

    The vehicle was not registered till date 16.4.2008. The complainant made enquiry to the 2nd opp.party and made complaint to the 1st opp.party but there was no use. On enquiry in the Sub Regional Transport Office, Punalur the complainant came to know that the Model of the vehicle is of 2007. The application for Registration was given to the Sub Regional Transport office, Punalur along with fine. The amount collected from the complainant was including the fine.

    The complainant informed the 2nd opp.party that the price of vehicle of 2007 model was low and that may be compensated. The 2nd opp.party informed his in competency for the adjustment and advised him to approach the 1st opp.party. The complainant demanded for compensation to the 1st opp.party but 1st opp.party denied her demand and blamed her.

    The opp.parties entered appearance before the Forum. Eventhough sufficient opportunities were given they have failed to file version and to adduce evidence.

    The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P8 were marked.

    The points that would arise for consideration are:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party

    2. Compensation and cost.

    Points 1 and 2:

    We have perused the complaint, affidavit and evidence adduced by the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the opp.parties to disprove the allegation of the complaint. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly

    In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as the price difference of Model change Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost.

  2. #2
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Indus Motor

    Meenakshi,W/o.Vasudevan,Rajendra Vilasom,Chennilamon,Kamukum Cherri,Pathanapuram

    Biju,33Yrs,Biju Vilasom(Thozhuvannoor Thekkekkara Puthenveedu),Kamukum Cherri,Pathanapuram
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    Chief Executive Officer,Indus Motor Company Pvt.Ltd.,Thevara,Near Shipyard,Ernakulam

    Works Manager,Indus Motor Company Pvt.Ltd.,Sarathy Junction,Karikkode,Kollam.5
    ...........Respondent(s)







    ORDER





    This is a complaint for unconditional release of car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Z 1632 entrusted for repairs, compensation costs etc.



    The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:



    The first complainant is the registered owner of Manuthi Alto car bearing Reg.No.KL-2/Z 1632 and the 2nd complainant is the handling the vehicle. One Jaya Kumar, the son of the first complainant in connection with his marriage has purchase this car from one C. Rajesh. At the time of purchase the car was having insurance coverage from 28.4.2006 to 27.4.2007 under the National Insurance Company. After purchase of the car on 6.4.2007 the first complainant has taken policy for the period from 6.4.2007 to 5.4.2008 from the ICICI Lombard . For effecting necessary changes in the R.C Book the same was entrusted with the RTO. While so, on 16.4.2007 the car met with an accident and sustained damages. The 2nd complainant thereupon contacted the office of the 2nd opp.party and the 2nd opp.party took the custody of vehicle and since the vehicle had Insurance Policy it was told that the complainant need not repairing charges but pay only 500/- towards processing fee.


    Thereafter on 3..5.07 the vehicle was returned to the 2nd complainant after repairs and the car was kept in the house of the first complainant. On 7.5.07 the son of the first complainant Jaya Kumar while driving the vehicle experienced certain difficulties and so he took the car again to the workshop of the 2nd opp.party and after examination of the car it was said that certain other works are to be done. After completing the repairs the opp.parties do not permit the complainant to take back the vehicle but demanded huge amount towards repair charges. The conduct of the opp.parties amounts to deficiency in the service. Hence the complaint



    The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.. The complainants are not consumers as defined under section 2[1][d] of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. The averment in para 1 of the complaint are not fully correct. The facts stated in para 2 of the complaint are correct The car referred to therein has met with an accident on 16.4.2007 at 7 am. One Amjith telephoned to Indus Motor Company, Kollam and informed the accident and requested to take the vehicle from the spot for necessary repairs. He further told that his brother –in-law is the owner of the said vehicle and at the time of accident the car was being driven by one Biju. Nobody has informed the opp.parties that the first complainant was the owner of the car. The accident was reported to the National Insurance Company, Kollam as requested by the said Amjith, Insurance Company appointed one Mr. Prasad who is the approved Surveyor of the company to prepare spot survey report. Accordingly Mr. Prasad went to the accident spot and prepared a spot survey report. The report was forwarded to the Insurance company and and the vehicle was takn to the 2nd opp.party’s workshop at Kollam who prepared an estimate for the repair.


    The claim form was also given to the said Amjith and after filling up the details with signature returned the claim form with the signature of Mr. Rajeshf who claims to be the owner of the vehicle. Mr. Amjith handed over the photocopy of the RC book , driving license of Mr. Biju and the copy of insurance policy from the National Insurance Company. After getting all these documents the 2nd opp.party handed over the documents along with the estimate of the surveyor for final approval. After that the surveyor again inspected the workshop and sanction was given to start the repairing work. When the 2nd opp.party and the surveyor demanded the original RC book it was told that the original RC book will be given after completion of the work.. When the work was completed the original RC book was produced which show that the registered owner of the car is the first complainant . But in the Insurance policy the name of the RC owner was shown as Rajesh.


    When the fact was brought to the notice of the Insurance Company by the surveyor and the opp.parties the Insurance Company rejected the claim stating that once the name of the RC owner is changed in the RC book the same has to be intimated to the Insurance Company within a period of 14 days for change of ownership. The owner ship was changed on 19.3.2007 and the accident was occurred on 16.4.2007. Since the change of ownership in the Insurance policy was not effected the claim was rejected by the Insurance Company.. After completion of the work the 2nd opp.party requested Mr. Amjith to take back the car after paying the repairing charges. But he did not turn up. Thereafter one Jayakumar son of the first complainant came to the 2nd opp.party and informed that the vehicle is having insurance policy from ICICI Lombard. Motor Insurance Company.


    But this fact was not brought to the notice of the opp.parties till completion of the work and the rejection of the papers by the National Insurance company But on enquiry it is revealed that the vehicle had only ICICI cover note which had not become policy at the time of the accident. The taking new policy from ICICI Motor Insurance Company was not informed to the opp.party either by Amjith or by Mr. Rajesh or Meenakshi and that is the reason for submitting the papers to the National Insurance Company. If the complainant has informed that the opp.party they could have claimed the repair charges from ICICI Lombard provided the claim was made within 7 days from the date of accident. A sum of Rs.73,149/- is due to the opp.parties from the owner of the vehicle. There is no dispute with regard to the repairing work conducted by the opp.parties.


    After rejection of the claim by the National Insurance Company nothing was done either by the complainant or by Mr. Rajesh or Amjith to correct the matter by approaching the National Insurance Company either for non-standard settlement by paying 50% of the assessed amount or by taking steps by filing their claims before the Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ernakulam Nothing was done by the complainants to approach the Insurance Ombudsman for getting their claim without doing that this complaint was filed . Neither the 2nd complainant or Rajesh or Amjith had paid any amount to this opp.parties till this date after entrustment of the car for the repairing works. The allegations raised in the complaint are false and baseless. The complainants can very well take back the vehicle after paying the repairing charges. Since the vehicle is being kept in the workshop of the 2nd opp.party they are entitled to get Rs.500/- per day towards floor rent. . Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint



    Points that would arise for consideration are:

    1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?

    2. Reliefs and costs.



    For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 to P12 are marked.

    For the Opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.



    Points:



    The fact that the car bearing Reg.No.KL-2 Z 1632 was involved in an accident on 16.4.2007 and sustained damages and that the car was entrusted with opp.party 2 for repairs are not disputed. The case of the complainant is that opp.parties are not returning the car after repairs despite the fact that necessary documents including the insurance certificate were entrusted with them and that the car had valid insurance certificate at the time of accident.



    According to the opp.parties the accident was reported to them by one Amjith who informed the incident to the National Insurance Company who are the insurers of the vehicle, who deputed one Prasad for spot survey and after completing the formalities the said Prasad gave sanction to the opp.parties to carryout repair works as per the estimate prepared by the opp.parties and accordingly they carried out the repairing works. But the Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the name of the Registered owner in the RC book and the insurance certificate are different and so the opp.parties did not get their repair charges and that they are ready to release the vehicle if the repairing charges are given.



    The 1st complainant purchased the car from one Rajesh who was the original RC owner. At the time of purchase the car was having a valid insurance certificate evidenced by Ext.P2. Though the complainant after purchase effected the transfer of Registration in her name through the RTO., Kollam the name in Ext.P2 was not got corrected by the complainant. Sec. 157 of he Motor Vehicles Act lays down that the transferee shall apply within 14 days from the date of transfer in the prescribed form to the insurer for making necessary changes in regard to the fact of transfer in the certificate of insurance and policy described in the certificate in his favour and the insurer shall make the necessary changes in the certificate and the policy of insurance in regard to the transfer of insurance.


    In the decision reported in 1996 ACJ 65 the Apex Court held that only if the transferee comply with the provisions of Sec. 157[2] he is entitled to be indemnified by the insurer. It is further held that ‘it is only in respect of 3rd party risks that Sec. 157 of the new Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred. If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well as damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself that would be a matter falling outside chapter XI of the new Act’.


    The complainant has no case that he has complied with the provisions of Sec.157[2]. There is also no material to show that the complainant has challenged the repudiation. Though it is stated that the vehicle had another policy [Ext.P3] there is nothing to show that the claim was preferred against that policy. Mere fact that there is insurance coverage is not sufficient. The insured has to comply with the formalities to get himself indemnified. The burden is on the complainant to establish that the payment as per the estimates has been made by the insurer to the repairer which the complainant herein failed to discharge. The complainant has no case that the opp.parties have taken the vehicle without their consent or that the repairing work is not satisfactory. So the complainant is bound to pay the opp.party their repairing charges. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice Point found accordingly.



    In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

  3. #3
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Indus Motors

    Complainant:




    K. Krishnan, Kasthuri, K.P 8-472, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram.





    Opposite parties:




    1.

    The Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd., 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash-25, Kasturba @@@@hi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.


    2.

    The General Manager, Indus Motors Co. Ltd., M.G. Road, Thevara, Kochi- 682 015.


    3.

    The Manager, Indus Motors Co. Ltd., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.












    This O.P having been taken as heard on 17.08.2009, the Forum on 15.09.2009 delivered the following:




    ORDER



    The facts of the case are as follows: As per the proforma invoice given to the complainant, the cost of the Zen VXI Model car is shown as Rs. 3,99,314/-. The cost of insurance comes to Rs. 13,126/-, the road tax & registration fee and extended warranty comes to Rs. 18,850/- and 1,450/- respectively. Thus the total cost of the vehicle as per proforma invoice dated 24.07.2004 is Rs. 4,32,740/-. The case of the complainant is that on 23.08.2004, as per newspaper reports, the price of the vehicle has been slashed down by Rs. 9,000/-. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 25.08.2004. The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 4,21,500/- for taking delivery of the vehicle.


    On a perusal of the invoice dated 24.08.2004 the complainant noticed that though a total amount of Rs. 4,21,500/- was collected from the complainant, an amount of Rs. 3,99,314/- alone is accounted towards the price of the vehicle and Rs. 22,186/- is seen accounted towards road tax and extended warranty. From the invoice it is also explicit that the price collected at Rs. 3,99,314/- covers the price of accessories supplied and sale tax. On further enquiry the complainant understood that there was a decrease in price at Rs. 12,462/- for the model Zen VXI model. In other words the ruling price of the model purchased was only Rs. 3,86,852/-. The complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant on several times. In spite of an earnest effort made to get it refund, the opposite parties did not honour the commitment of the company so far. Hence this complaint.





    The 1st opposite party, the Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. filed their version contending the case. The 1st opposite party states that there was no contract for sale of vehicle between the complainant and 1st opposite party. The complainant neither paid any amount to the 1st opposite party for purchase of vehicle nor the complainant had any transaction relating to the sale of the vehicle in question with the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party sells the vehicles to its dealers on a price prevailing at the date of invoicing. It is the prerogative of the 1st opposite party to decide the price of its products. In so far as sale of vehicle to the individual customer is concerned, it is the dealer and that individual customer has to settle the terms and conditions of sale including the price of vehicle, date of delivery etc. The sale of vehicle, therefore, depend upon specific conditions of agreement for sale as entered into between the complainant and selling dealer. The 1st opposite party states that the company was not bound to honour any alleged commitment with the complainant.




    The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties' main contentions in the version are that these opposite parties had not collected excess amount from the complainant. They admitted that the price of the vehicle and the insurance amount till 2nd August 2004 had been changed and the new scheme was introduced from 23rd August to 31st August 2004. The opposite parties stated the details as below:







    Old price upto 22nd August New price from 23rd August to 31 August

    Vehicle Cost - 399314 386852

    Insurance - 13126 12738

    -------------- ------------

    4,12,440 3,99,590/-

    ======= =======




    Old Scheme till 22nd August New price from 23rd August to 31 August




    Free Insurance - 13126 Price difference - 12462

    Accessories given - 13239/- Insu 50% of 12738 - 6369

    ----------- ------------

    Total 26,365/- 18,831/-

    ======= =======




    As per the opposite parties the complainant has enjoyed the benefit of Rs. 7,534/-. If the complainant had purchased the vehicle after the price decrease he would have got only the above mentioned 50% insurance and price difference as offered and he would have lost the gain Rs. 7,534/-. And therefore these opposite parties had given the best deal, which is beneficial to the complainant with a view to keep good customer relationship. The opposite parties deny the allegation that the opposite parties have collected excess amount of Rs. 12,412/- from the complainant. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

    In this case complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he has been examined as PW1. From his side 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. 1st opposite party has also filed affidavit along with a document. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have submitted that they have no evidence.

    Points that would arise for consideration are:-

    1.

    Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
    2.

    Reliefs and costs.

    Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has been examined as PW1 and the opposite parties cross examined him. From the complainant's side 5 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the proforma invoice dated 24.07.2004. The on road price quoted in Ext. P1 by the 3rd opposite party is Rs. 4,32,740/-. As per this document Ex Showroom price is Rs. 3,99,314, insurance amount is 13,126/-, road tax and registration fee is 18,850/- and extended warranty is 1,450/-. In the proforma invoice three conditions are stated. First and second conditions are (1) price quoted above is current and subject to change without notice (2) price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable.


    The opposite parties have no objection on these points. Ext. P2 is the copies of paper cuttings of Malayala Manorama and Hindu in which the news published that the price of the vehicle Zen have been slashed down by around Rs. 9,000/-. Ext. P3 is the invoice No. 5965 dated 24.08.2004. As per this document the complainant had to remit Rs. 4,21,500/- to the 3rd opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the delivery receipt dated 25.08.2004. Ext. P5 is the copy of tele fax dated 16.09.2004 issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. The copy of this document has been produced by the 1st opposite party also along with their version.

    We have carefully examined all the pleadings, documents and evidence of both sides. The opposite parties agreed that the price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable (Ext. P1) In this case we have also taken that view for deciding the case. The date of invoice is 24.08.2004(Ext. P3). As per Ext. P5 the price of the vehicle on that date was Rs. 3,99,590/- including insurance. The opposite parties have argued that at that time they offered 50% insurance off. Accordingly the complainant would have to pay Rs. 3,99590-Rs. 6,369/- = Rs. 3,92,221/-. But the opposite parties charged Rs. 3,99,314/- from the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 3,99,314 – Rs. 3,99,221= Rs. 7,093/- from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the excess amount collected by them from the complainant. In this case opposite parties argued that they have given accessories for Rs. 13,239/- as free.


    But they have no evidence to prove that contention and moreover the complainant never demanded free accessories from the opposite parties. In Ext. P5 document the opposite parties stated that they have given accessories for Rs. 13,239/-, but the opposite parties charged Rs. 407.88 for accessories as per Ext. P3. In this case the opposite parties have failed to prove that they have given the accessories free of cost. From the above mentioned discussions we are of the view that there is unfair trade practice from the side of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, that they have not given the vehicle at the price prevailing at the time of invoicing. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

    In the result, the opposite parties 2 & 3 are directed to refund Rs. 7,093/- with 12% annual interest from 24.08.2004 till the date of realization and shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization. 1st opposite party is exempted from any liability.

  4. #4
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Indus Motors

    K.M.Mohammad Sali, Pooveliparambil House,

    Po.Pettikundu, Via. Cheruvathur. } Complainant





    1. Manager, Indus Motors, Indus House,

    Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt. } Opposite parties

    2. Divakaran, Sales Executive, Indus Motors,

    Indus House, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad.



    3. Radhakrishnan, R.No. 202,

    Alankar Tourist Home, Kottachery,

    Po.Kanhangad.



    4. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd,

    3rd floor, High Lane Plaza, M.G.Road,

    Kasaragod. 671 121.




    O R D E R




    Complainant avers,

    That he is the RC owner of the Maruti Omni bearing Reg.No.KL-60/236. The vehicle was purchased on 14-07-06 through opposite party No.1 who is the dealer of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.2 is the sales executive of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is an auto consultant who is doing the documentation works for the registration of vehicles. Opposite parties 2 & 3 have done all the procedures for registration of his new vehicle. The complainant duly insured his vehicle with opposite party No.4. The complainant intended to take All India Permit to his vehicle to ply it as taxi, engaged opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2. They received Rs.7000/- from the complainant as service charge and fee for the All India Permit. The opposite party No.2 & 3 assured that they will send all the papers to State Transport Authority and for that purpose obtained signatures in several documents.

    2. The vehicle met with an accident on 21-07-07. It was taken to 1st opposite party for necessary repair work. Since the vehicle was having the NAT MAR policy complainant also entrusted all the documents required for claiming the insurance policy benefits. But opposite party No.4 repudiated the claim for violation of policy conditions stating that on the date of accident there was no valid permit Thereafter opposite party No.1 issued a registered lawyer notice to the complainant asking him to take the vehicle from the workshop after paying their bill Rs.92,872/- to which he sent a reply on 13-02-08.

    3. According to complainant the vehicle ought to have been repaired on nearly cash loss basis since the policy of insurance of the vehicle was taken through opposite party No.1 by way of NATMAR policy. As per NATMAR policy in case of any accidental loss the vehicle would be repaired at any Maruti Workshop on nearly cash less basis. The insured has to bear just the depreciation cost of components and compulsory deduction only and the insurance claim amount has to be settled by the dealer with insurer.

    4. Later complainant received back the application for tourist taxi permit from State Transport Authority. It was returned for want of required fee of Rs.2200/-.

    5. According to complainant all the problems with regard to the claim of the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 is sending the application for authorization and permit in time.

    6. Opposite party No.1 also did not give the details of repairs and the amount incurred for repair. They also caused undue delay for the repair of the vehicle.

    7. The vehicle was intended for the livelihood of the complainant and his family. He is a driver by profession. Due to the delay caused in repair the complainant had loss of income and the loss of subsequent payments of road tax, insurance charges etc. Therefore he is claming a sum of Rs.1,82,800/- on different heads by way of compensation with future interest with a direction to opposite party No.1 to return the vehicle after completion of repair.

    8. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed versions jointly. According to opposite party No.2 is not a sales executive but a finance co-ordinator. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have not received any amount from the complainant for obtaining All India Taxi Permit from the concerned Registering Authority.

    9. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 the vehicle kept in their workshop and they had taken up the repair work. An amount of Rs.92, 872/- is the bill for the repair. After completion of the repair Opposite parties 1&2 informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle on 24-11-07. But complainant has not turned up. Now the vehicle is occupying a sizeable portion of the floor of opposite parties garage to which they are entitled for floor rent of Rs.175/- per day apart from their repair charges.

    10. Opposite party No.3 filed his version. According to him he is totally a stranger to the allegations made in the complaint. He has not received any amount from complainant towards service charge and fee for All India Permit. According to opposite party No.3 he is running an office at Kanhangad for filling up all the forms in connection with various services available from the government offices. The complainant also approached him to fill up form No.45 c, 46 for All India Permit for his vehicle for that he charged a fee of Rs.50/- only. Hence there is no deficiency in service on his part.

    11. Opposite party No4. In their version contended that the claim is repudiated since the complainant has not produced the permit. As per the terms and conditions of policy it covers the use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub section 3 of Sec.66 of MV Act. They had deputed a surveyor immediately after reporting the accident and the surveyor has assessed the loss sustained to the vehicle. Thereafter complainant was directed to produce the permit and authorization to settle the claim. But it was not produced. The complainant has produced a copy of the application for grant of authorization for tourist permit alleged to have submitted before State Transport Authority on 26-01-07. But the complainant has not produced any documents to substantiate that the said application was submitted before State Transport Authority. Hence the claim was repudiated.

    12. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A26 marked on his side. He was cross examined by the counsels for opposite parties 1 to 4. For opposite party No.1 Sri.Vijayan the Works Manager of Indus Motors Kanhangad branch filed affidavit and he was cross-examined by counsel for the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit and subjected to cross-examination by counsel for complainant. Both sides heard and the documents scrutinized.

    13. It is a common practice among the vehicle dealers that as part of their post sale services the customers, to making arrangement for the payment of the road tax, insurance premium etc. In case of taxi vehicles, the processing submission of required documents for obtaining permits from the concerned authority is also under took by them. Since most of the new customers may be ignorant about the procedures. There are so many auto consultants/agents doing this works after collecting service charges either from the customer or from the vehicle dealers.

    14. The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties 2 &3 jointly received a sum of Rs.7000/- including their service charges and fee for obtaining the permit for arranging permit for his vehicle.Ext.A26 dt. 31-8-06 is a proforma invoice issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant. In Ext.A26 it is seen that in addition to the ex-show room price of the vehicle Rs.2,56,388/- a sum of Rs.7500/- is seen collected towards permanent registration charges. There is no explanation by either by opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 regarding the collection of said amount and it’s purpose. Despite the collection of said amount they stoutly denied the acceptance of Rs.7000/- for any purpose. The further contention of opposite party No.3 is that he has only filled up the necessary Forums for that he collected only Rs.50/- is also not believable. Usually the remittance of necessary fee for permit and such other things are done by the agent himself. The opposite party No.3 has no case that the complainant had any personal vengeance against him to implicate him falsely in the party array.


    The opposite party No.1 also cannot escape from their liability to compensate the complainant since the Ext.A26 invoice is issued by opposite party No. 1 that includes the charges for registration of vehicle. We do not think that for the permanent registration of the vehicle alone one customer will pay Rs.7500/- especially now a days the permanent registration are done by the dealers of vehicles at their own cost as part of their after sales services. So it is clear that the said amount is collected for arranging tourist permit for his vehicle as averred in the complaint. That apart it is hard to believe that the complainant was plying his vehicle as taxi without even applying for a permit and thereby violating the Motor Vehicles Act & Rules.

    15. Therefore it is revealed that opposite parties 1 to 3 committed gross deficiency in their service rendered to complainant.

    16. The contention of opposite party No.4 is that the vehicle was without a permit at the time of accident and that being a breach of policy condition, the claim is repudiated. We accept the said contentions and therefore it cannot be held that the repudiation of claim by opposite party No.4 amounts to any deficiency in service of opposite party No.4.

    17. Hence only the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by him.

    18. Relief & Costs. Had the vehicle of the complainant been possessing a valid permit at the time of accident then the insurer should have been liable to pay the compensation according to the assessment of the surveyor. The surveyors report is produced and marked as Ext.B4. As per the said report the surveyor assessed the damages of Rs.81,340/-.

    19. According to opposite party No.1 a sum of Rs.92,872/- is due to him towards the repair charges and the repair of the vehicle was completed as on 26-11-07. The complainant had denied the opportunity to ply his vehicle to eke out his livelihood more than one and half years. The retention of the vehicle by opposite party No. 1 for no fault of the complainant is deprecated. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his income. The complainant also suffered much mental agony, hardships and sufferings due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3.

    20. The opposite party No.1 is entitled to get their repair charges Rs.92,872/-. As per Survey Report, Surveyor assessed the damages at Rs.81,340/-. Opposite party No.4 denied this amount to complainant for want of permit to his vehicle and that was caused due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3. In addition to that the complainant has suffered much mental agony and sufferings. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant adequately for his mental agony and sufferings. The complainant could not ply his vehicle for about one and half years as on today and there by denied his livelihood. Therefore we fix a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,340/- (81340 + 30,000/-) (rounded to Rs.1,11,000/-) by way of compensation from opposite parties 1 to 3. We fix the liability of the opposite parties 1 to 3 severally in equal shares.


    Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are severally liable to pay Rs.37,000/- each to the complainant. In addition to that opposite parties 1 to 3 are also liable to pay Rs.3000/-by way of cost of these proceedings to the complainant. This amount shall also be paid proportionately in equal shares. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment. The opposite party No.1 is directed to return the vehicle to the complainant after repair in good running condition after collecting the balance amount deducting their liability (92,872 – 38,000/-) i.e. Rs.54,872/- without collecting any demurrage charges. Opposite party No.4 is exonerated from liabilities.

  5. #5
    Tanu's Avatar
    Tanu is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    446

    Default Indus Motors

    K.M.Mohammad Sali, Pooveliparambil House,

    Po.Pettikundu, Via. Cheruvathur. } Complainant

    (Adv. Purushothaman, Hosdurg)



    1. Manager, Indus Motors, Indus House,

    Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt. } Opposite parties

    2. Divakaran, Sales Executive, Indus Motors,

    Indus House, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad.

    (Adv. K. Rajeevan, Hosdurg)

    3. Radhakrishnan, R.No. 202,

    Alankar Tourist Home, Kottachery,

    Po.Kanhangad.

    (Adv. T.K.Rajan, Kasaragod)

    4. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd,

    3rd floor, High Lane Plaza, M.G.Road,

    Kasaragod. 671 121.

    (Adv. M.Balagopalan, Kasaragod)



    O R D E R

    SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT



    Complainant avers,

    That he is the RC owner of the Maruti Omni bearing Reg.No.KL-60/236. The vehicle was purchased on 14-07-06 through opposite party No.1 who is the dealer of the said vehicle. Opposite party No.2 is the sales executive of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is an auto consultant who is doing the documentation works for the registration of vehicles. Opposite parties 2 & 3 have done all the procedures for registration of his new vehicle. The complainant duly insured his vehicle with opposite party No.4. The complainant intended to take All India Permit to his vehicle to ply it as taxi, engaged opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2. They received Rs.7000/- from the complainant as service charge and fee for the All India Permit. The opposite party No.2 & 3 assured that they will send all the papers to State Transport Authority and for that purpose obtained signatures in several documents.

    2. The vehicle met with an accident on 21-07-07. It was taken to 1st opposite party for necessary repair work. Since the vehicle was having the NAT MAR policy complainant also entrusted all the documents required for claiming the insurance policy benefits. But opposite party No.4 repudiated the claim for violation of policy conditions stating that on the date of accident there was no valid permit Thereafter opposite party No.1 issued a registered lawyer notice to the complainant asking him to take the vehicle from the workshop after paying their bill Rs.92,872/- to which he sent a reply on 13-02-08.

    3. According to complainant the vehicle ought to have been repaired on nearly cash loss basis since the policy of insurance of the vehicle was taken through opposite party No.1 by way of NATMAR policy. As per NATMAR policy in case of any accidental loss the vehicle would be repaired at any Maruti Workshop on nearly cash less basis. The insured has to bear just the depreciation cost of components and compulsory deduction only and the insurance claim amount has to be settled by the dealer with insurer.

    4. Later complainant received back the application for tourist taxi permit from State Transport Authority. It was returned for want of required fee of Rs.2200/-.

    5. According to complainant all the problems with regard to the claim of the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 is sending the application for authorization and permit in time.

    6. Opposite party No.1 also did not give the details of repairs and the amount incurred for repair. They also caused undue delay for the repair of the vehicle.

    7. The vehicle was intended for the livelihood of the complainant and his family. He is a driver by profession. Due to the delay caused in repair the complainant had loss of income and the loss of subsequent payments of road tax, insurance charges etc. Therefore he is claming a sum of Rs.1,82,800/- on different heads by way of compensation with future interest with a direction to opposite party No.1 to return the vehicle after completion of repair.

    8. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed versions jointly. According to opposite party No.2 is not a sales executive but a finance co-ordinator. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have not received any amount from the complainant for obtaining All India Taxi Permit from the concerned Registering Authority.

    9. According to opposite parties 1 & 2 the vehicle kept in their workshop and they had taken up the repair work. An amount of Rs.92, 872/- is the bill for the repair. After completion of the repair Opposite parties 1&2 informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle on 24-11-07. But complainant has not turned up. Now the vehicle is occupying a sizeable portion of the floor of opposite parties garage to which they are entitled for floor rent of Rs.175/- per day apart from their repair charges.

    10. Opposite party No.3 filed his version. According to him he is totally a stranger to the allegations made in the complaint. He has not received any amount from complainant towards service charge and fee for All India Permit. According to opposite party No.3 he is running an office at Kanhangad for filling up all the forms in connection with various services available from the government offices. The complainant also approached him to fill up form No.45 c, 46 for All India Permit for his vehicle for that he charged a fee of Rs.50/- only. Hence there is no deficiency in service on his part.

    11. Opposite party No4. In their version contended that the claim is repudiated since the complainant has not produced the permit. As per the terms and conditions of policy it covers the use only under a permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub section 3 of Sec.66 of MV Act. They had deputed a surveyor immediately after reporting the accident and the surveyor has assessed the loss sustained to the vehicle. Thereafter complainant was directed to produce the permit and authorization to settle the claim. But it was not produced. The complainant has produced a copy of the application for grant of authorization for tourist permit alleged to have submitted before State Transport Authority on 26-01-07. But the complainant has not produced any documents to substantiate that the said application was submitted before State Transport Authority. Hence the claim was repudiated.

    12. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A26 marked on his side. He was cross examined by the counsels for opposite parties 1 to 4. For opposite party No.1 Sri.Vijayan the Works Manager of Indus Motors Kanhangad branch filed affidavit and he was cross-examined by counsel for the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit and subjected to cross-examination by counsel for complainant. Both sides heard and the documents scrutinized.

    13. It is a common practice among the vehicle dealers that as part of their post sale services the customers, to making arrangement for the payment of the road tax, insurance premium etc. In case of taxi vehicles, the processing submission of required documents for obtaining permits from the concerned authority is also under took by them. Since most of the new customers may be ignorant about the procedures. There are so many auto consultants/agents doing this works after collecting service charges either from the customer or from the vehicle dealers.

    14. The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties 2 &3 jointly received a sum of Rs.7000/- including their service charges and fee for obtaining the permit for arranging permit for his vehicle.Ext.A26 dt. 31-8-06 is a proforma invoice issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant. In Ext.A26 it is seen that in addition to the ex-show room price of the vehicle Rs.2,56,388/- a sum of Rs.7500/- is seen collected towards permanent registration charges. There is no explanation by either by opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 regarding the collection of said amount and it’s purpose. Despite the collection of said amount they stoutly denied the acceptance of Rs.7000/- for any purpose. The further contention of opposite party No.3 is that he has only filled up the necessary Forums for that he collected only Rs.50/- is also not believable. Usually the remittance of necessary fee for permit and such other things are done by the agent himself. The opposite party No.3 has no case that the complainant had any personal vengeance against him to implicate him falsely in the party array. The opposite party No.1 also cannot escape from their liability to compensate the complainant since the Ext.A26 invoice is issued by opposite party No. 1 that includes the charges for registration of vehicle. We do not think that for the permanent registration of the vehicle alone one customer will pay Rs.7500/- especially now a days the permanent registration are done by the dealers of vehicles at their own cost as part of their after sales services. So it is clear that the said amount is collected for arranging tourist permit for his vehicle as averred in the complaint. That apart it is hard to believe that the complainant was plying his vehicle as taxi without even applying for a permit and thereby violating the Motor Vehicles Act & Rules.

    15. Therefore it is revealed that opposite parties 1 to 3 committed gross deficiency in their service rendered to complainant.

    16. The contention of opposite party No.4 is that the vehicle was without a permit at the time of accident and that being a breach of policy condition, the claim is repudiated. We accept the said contentions and therefore it cannot be held that the repudiation of claim by opposite party No.4 amounts to any deficiency in service of opposite party No.4.

    17. Hence only the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by him.

    18. Relief & Costs. Had the vehicle of the complainant been possessing a valid permit at the time of accident then the insurer should have been liable to pay the compensation according to the assessment of the surveyor. The surveyors report is produced and marked as Ext.B4. As per the said report the surveyor assessed the damages of Rs.81,340/-.

    19. According to opposite party No.1 a sum of Rs.92,872/- is due to him towards the repair charges and the repair of the vehicle was completed as on 26-11-07. The complainant had denied the opportunity to ply his vehicle to eke out his livelihood more than one and half years. The retention of the vehicle by opposite party No. 1 for no fault of the complainant is deprecated. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his income. The complainant also suffered much mental agony, hardships and sufferings due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3.

    20. The opposite party No.1 is entitled to get their repair charges Rs.92,872/-. As per Survey Report, Surveyor assessed the damages at Rs.81,340/-. Opposite party No.4 denied this amount to complainant for want of permit to his vehicle and that was caused due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties 1 to 3. In addition to that the complainant has suffered much mental agony and sufferings. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to compensate the complainant adequately for his mental agony and sufferings. The complainant could not ply his vehicle for about one and half years as on today and there by denied his livelihood. Therefore we fix a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,11,340/- (81340 + 30,000/-) (rounded to Rs.1,11,000/-) by way of compensation from opposite parties 1 to 3. We fix the liability of the opposite parties 1 to 3 severally in equal shares. Therefore the opposite parties 1 to 3 are severally liable to pay Rs.37,000/- each to the complainant. In addition to that opposite parties 1 to 3 are also liable to pay Rs.3000/-by way of cost of these proceedings to the complainant. This amount shall also be paid proportionately in equal shares. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the said amount of Rs.1,11,000/- will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment. The opposite party No.1 is directed to return the vehicle to the complainant after repair in good running condition after collecting the balance amount deducting their liability (92,872 – 38,000/-) i.e. Rs.54,872/- without collecting any demurrage charges. Opposite party No.4 is exonerated from liabilities.

  6. #6
    anvar Guest

    Default Mileage

    MARUTHI Ertiga ZDI poor mileage .jest 9km/l .Please help

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Indus true value
    By Unregistered in forum Four Wheeler
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 06:49 PM
  2. A.B. Motors
    By admin in forum Four Wheeler
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 09:10 PM
  3. Indus Ind Bank Limited
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 04:57 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:31 AM
  5. R. S. Motors pvt. Ltd.
    By SAURASHTRA FUELS in forum After sale Services
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 03:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •