Manager, Premanchal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Zone 2, Maharana Pratap Nagar Bhopal vs. Ramdas dated 2009-03-16
State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum which had directed the OPs no. 2 and 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 1.50 lakh and Rs. 25,000/- respectively as damages and both together Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainants, for deficiency in service in respect of repairs to a tractor manufactured by OP no. 1 and sold to the complainants by OP no---The District Forum gave a clear finding that OP no. 2 handed over the tractor to OP no.1 for repairs by the latter during the remanded proceedings and at that time, some parts of the tractor were missing---As professional dealers, OP no. 2 was also expected to open job cards each time the complainants approached it complaints of malfunctioning of the tractor; in any case, it was for OP no. 2 to keep a complete record of the free servicing and repairs it did during the warranty period and make copies of these reports available to the complainants at the end of each visit to its garage. OP no. 2 failed to produce any such document before the District Forum during the remanded proceedings. These do amount to deficiencies in service on the part of OP no.2---the complainants have much to blame themselves for. They set out with a case of manufacturing defect in the tractor, along with allegations of spurious parts/components and repeated instances of unsatisfactory performance. After filing a consumer complaint, they simply abandoned their new tractor for six long years at the premises of the same dealer against which they had filed the complaint, without bothering to pay the repair charges or to enquire if they could get the tractor released after a smaller payment. They did not co-operate with the District Forum in even establishing if OP no. 1 had repaired the vehicle satisfactorily. It is clear that the complainants were not seriously interested in operating the tractor – even if they believed that their complaint would be allowed, they had no way of knowing that they would necessarily get a new tractor---petitions allowed in part. read more +
The Manager Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. Bachchi Ram Dangwal dated 2009-03-16
Deficiency of service---The complainant claimed that to enable his unemployed son to earn his livelihood, he purchased the TATA truck---the complainant noticed several defects in the vehicle, like passing of oil into the coolant, pressure leakage and noise in the tappet, and informed OP no.2 on 10.08.1999. OP no.2, however, advised the complaint to take the truck to the workshop of OP no.1 because necessary spare parts were not available with OP no.2. The complainant took the vehicle on 16.08.1999 to the workshop of OP no.1. On 26.08.1999, OP no.1 repaired the vehicle, including changing a gasket but charged the complainant Rs. 1,000/- for keeping the truck there for 10 days. However, the vehicle continued to give trouble and unexpectedly stopped running on 14.09.1999---at some point in the proceedings before the State Commission, there was an offer of repairing the truck and making it roadworthy and the cost of repairs estimated by the OPs was about Rs. 25,000/-. This figure finds mention in the State Commission’s order. That notwithstanding, the State Commission went ahead with ordering full refund of the price of the truck to the complainant, with interest at the rather high rate of 15% per annum. This was mainly because the complainant had taken a loan for the truck, which he was unable to repay and there was no certainty, given the background of the case, that the OPs would give a good truck even if they were directed to replace the old one---there is no reliable expert evidence to hold that the truck suffered from any manufacturing defect. There was marginal deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and 2 in that, in August 1999, they made the complainant run around from one workshop to the other. However, the conduct of the complainant in leaving the truck parked at the OPs’ workshop for a long period in August 1999 was unjustified and not that of an unemployed person interested in plying the truck for earning a livelihood. Moreover, the complainant had the body of the truck converted unauthorisedly and caused tampering with the fuel injection pump. By doing so, he violated the terms of the warranty. In such a situation, the order of the State Commission cannot be upheld nor, strictly speaking, can any indulgence be shown to the complainant. read more +
BHAGWATI PRASAD BORASI vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA dated 2009-03-03
The claim made by the petitioner was repudiated by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC)-respondent herein on the ground that deceased willfully suppressed facts about her state of health---The District Forum dismissed the complaint and held that the deceased was guilty of willful suppression of facts regarding her state of health---the deceased, the Agent of LIC, i.e., the brother of the deceased as well as the Doctor, who was the father-in-law of the deceased, were acting in collusion with each other in suppressing the existence of serious ailment of the deceased while obtaining the insurance polices as well while seeking their subsequent revival. The possibility of the prolonged ailment ultimately causing the problem of pancreatitis and resulting in the death of the deceased, cannot be ruled out---the deceased had deliberately concealed the fact that she had not been treated by a Doctor prior to and at the time of the taking of the policies as also at the time of their revival. Deceased did not act in utmost good faith and is guilty of fraudulent suppression of facts regarding her health---the respondent was justified in repudiating the claim of the petitioner as the deceased had suppressed the material facts while taking the policies as well as at the time when the policies were got revived. Finding regarding suppression of facts is finding of fact based on evidence---order affirmed. read more +
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs. PARUL BALA dated 2009-03-03
Motor insurance---the car met an accident and was totally smashed---claim was not settled---Plea that the car was on test drive rejected. Nobody will give the vehicle to be driven upto Delhi for a test drive---It was held that “The petitioner has not put on record the insurance policy. In the absence of the policy, we are not able to ascertain as to within what time, the respondent could file his claim. Mr. Mehra was unable to state as to within how much time, the claim could be filed. In the absence of any assertion, as to within how much time the complainant was required to inform the petitioner, it is neither possible nor desirable on our part to reject the claim of the respondent on this ground—revison petition dismissed. read more +
L.I.C. OF INDIA vs. RAM NARAYAN YADAV dated 2009-03-02
Life insurance policy--- Non-Forfeiture Regulation---premium due---cheque issued, returned with remark---“signing partner reported dead”---the life assured was killed on 27.08.1992 due to firearm injuries at Katihar---According to the respondent, the cheque could not even otherwise be not encashed, as the life assured had issued the cheque knowing well that the said cheque could not be honoured because of insufficiency of funds---as no valid payment of due premium was offered by the life assured, the policy had lapsed on 28.04.1992---As per Non-Forfeiture Regulation, if premium for three years had been paid, then, the policy would not have been wholly valid but would have subsisted as paid-up policy for a reduced sum payable on the date of maturity or on the life assured’s premature death. That under the terms of the policy, the respondent was not entitled to the payment of any amount but keeping in view the relaxation Clause 4.2 of the Policy Servicing Manual No.11, the respondent was entitled to payment of half of the amount assured and, accordingly, petitioner sent a cheque of Rs.2,18,000/- which was duly encashed---The Non-forfeiture Regulations will not apply to the policy in question as the third premium had not been paid and, consequently, the policy had lapsed. But in terms of Clause 4.2 of Policy Servicing Manual No. 11, relaxation in the matter of settlement of death claim under policies where premiums paid for full two years, petitioner has agreed to pay 50% of the assured amount. As Anil Kumar Yadav died after five months of the unpaid premium, the respondent was entitled to get half of the sum assured---Even if it is assumed that the respondent had paid three premiums, even then, under Non-forfeiture Regulations, the policy would have subsisted as a paid-up policy for a reduced sum payable on the date of maturity or at the life assured’s death. But in this case, as we have stated, the above insurance company had received premium only for two years and till the third premium was received by it, the Non-forfeiture Regulations will not apply---Petition allowed. read more +
PUNJAB URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. RAKESH GOYAL dated 2009-03-02
Allotment of a built-up HIG (single storey) house---The name of the complainant was registered---As the house was not allotted, the complainant filed the complaint with the District Forum with the aforesaid averments made in the complaint--- District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to process the case of the complainant deeming him to be successful applicant as on 10.11.1989 and allot him a suitable HIG type house (single storeyed or a flat) for a total sale price out any available scheme prevalent in the year 1989. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with cost of Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses was also awarded---Scheme under consideration before the High Court was the same as in the present case. The petitioner before the High court was situated in the same position as the respondent herein. It has been held that the right acquired by the petitioners to be considered for allotment of HIG (single storey) houses in Phase IX, SAS Nagar did not subsist after the Board had undertaken an exercise for allotment of houses constructed by it. Rather that right stood extinguished on the day the process of allotment was completed. The right of the petitioner could not continue indefinitely/inperpetuity---Petition allowed---order set aside. read more +
