PRAVINCHANDRA HARGOVINDAS JOSHI vs DCM TOYOTA LIMITED

THE complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,28,663/- and compensation from the opponents on the following allegations.

THE complainant had, according to him, purchased DCM Toyota bearing Registration No. GJ-5-T-3114 (vehicle for short) under hire purchase scheme from Opponent No. 1 on April 22,1991. THE vehicle was purchased through Opponent No. 1 is manufacturer of the vehicle. Opponent No. 4 is its agent at Surat. Opponent No. 2 is alleged to be financier of Opponent No. 1, Opponent No. 1 had taken the vehicle on lease from Opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 3 is the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured under Policy No. 40127/91 dated April 22,1991. The case of the complainant is that he had paid margin money and loan instalments totalling to Rs. 1,05,806/-to Opponent No. 1. He had paid Rs. 12,857/- to Opponent No. 4 towards insurance transportation, registration of vehicle etc. Complainant had also spent about Rs. 10,000/- for making addition and alteration in the vehicle.

It would thus appear from the facts stated above that the complainant was holding the vehicle as sub-lessee under a Hire Purchase agreement entered into with Opponent No. 1. The vehicle met with an accident on September 1,1991 and 4 persons including the complainant''s son died in the accident. The possession of the damaged vehicle was taken over by Opponent No. 4 on behalf of the Opponent No. 1. It is the case of the complainant that Opponent No. 1 must have received the sum assured viz., Rs. 2,93,000/- from the Insurance Company. According to the complainant, he is entitled to receive Rs. 1,28,663 /- from the Opponents. Opponents, however, failed to pay this amount inspite of letters written to Opponent No. 1 by himself and Surat Consumer Association. On the above grounds, the complainant has filer) this complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,28,663/-, compensation and costs.

THE Opponents have filed written statements resisting the claim made by the complainant. THEir main contention is that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the definition of "consumer" given under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and in any case, there being no deficiency of service on their part, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from them. It is further contended that the complainant is merely a sub-lessee and he has no right to file the complaint. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Commission in Kachhia Patel Rajendra v. DCM Toyota Limited and Ors; (Complaint No. 348/91 decided on October 15,1993). At the time of hearing of this complaint, the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that he was pressing this complaint only against Opponent No. 1 and that too only to the extent of the money which is paid to it by Opponent No. 3 Insurance Company. Since the complaint is not pressed against Opponents No. 2,3 and 4, it shall stand dismissed against them. So far as Opponent No. 1 is concerned it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that Opponent No. 3 has paid some amount to it and since the complainant is entitled to this amount. Opponent No. 1 should be directed to pay that amount to hi m. There is absolutely no evidence on record as to whether Opponent No. 3 has paid any amount of Opponent No. 1. In fact, it appears from letter dated October 14,1993 which is addressed by Opponent No. 3 to Opponent No. 1 and which is at page 33 that Opponent No. 3 had repudiated the claim on the ground that unauthorised passengers were carried in the vehicle. It is stated to the effect that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle meant for carrying or transporting goods only and since passengers were carried there was violation of terms and conditions of the RTO permit and the insurance policy. There is no other evidence to prove that Opponent No. 3 had paid any money to Opponent No. 1. But apart from that we fail to understand as to how any claim can be made against Opponent No. 1 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. There is a contractual relation between the Complainant and Opponent No. 1. There is a Hire Purchase agreement under which Opponent No. 1 has subleased the vehicle to the Complainant. It is not stated as to what services Opponent No. 1 was required to render to the Complainant and what deficiency was therein rendering such services on the part of Opponent No. 1. The insurance policy which is issued by the Insurance Company also stands in the name of Opponent No. 1. Opponent No. 1 had taken vehicle on lease from Opponent No. 2 and therefore it could not be said that it had no insurable interest in the vehicle. Therefore, even if it has received any sum from the Insurance Company for the damage to the vehicle it could utilise this amount for discharge of its liability to Opponent No. 2. It is true that the complainant has paid certain amount to Opponents No. 1 and 4. But for that reason alone, it could not be said that whatever amount is received by Opponent No. 1 from Opponent No. 3 is payable to the complainant. The questions which are involved in this complaint are such which could not be decided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Remedy, if any, available to the complainant is to file a civil suit. In our opinion, therefore, this complaint deserves to be dismissed.

IN the result, this complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.