(Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
Topsel Toyota _____________________________________ Appellant
v.
Pasang Tshering Sherpa & Anr. ____________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 9931-9932 of 2017, decided on July 10, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2017 and 30.03.2017 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the National Commission”) in Revision Petition No. 156 of 2017 and Review Application No. 49 of 2017 respectively.
2. The complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) approached the authorised dealer, i.e., the appellant before us for repair of the vehicle. Since there appears to have been some deficiency in service in the form of delay in making the repair, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short “the District Forum”). The complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum both against the appellant as well as against the insurance company for not reimbursing the total amount charged by the appellant for repair of the insured vehicle.
3. The District Forum awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,92,080/- to the complainant and made the liability joint and several. While making the liability joint and several, the District Forum noted that the insurance company has already paid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant. It was directed by the District Forum that the appellant shall pay the balance amount to the complainant.
4. Feeling aggrieved by foisting the liability of the balance amount, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short “the State Commission”). The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission by an order dated 18th October, 2016.
5. Against the order passed by the State Commission, a revision petition was filed by the appellant before the National Commission. The National Commission dismissed the appeal by an order dated 9th February, 2017 thereby upholding the orders passed by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission. The Review Application filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the National Commission.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the liability was joint and several and since the vehicle was insured, the entire liability should have been of the insurance company.
7. We may note that despite service, there is no appearance on behalf of the insurance company. No one is present on behalf of the insurance company to refute the submission made.
8. We are in agreement with the view expressed by learned counsel for the appellant. Since the vehicle was insured, the liability should have been placed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission and the National Commission on the insurance company.
9. We, therefore, accept the view canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant and modify the orders passed by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission and direct that the entire amount awarded by the District Forum will be the sole liability of the insurance company and that the complainant would be entitled to recover the amount from the insurance company.
10. The appeals stand disposed of.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9931-9932/2017
Topsel Toyota ______________________________________ Appellant
v.
Pasang Tshering Sherpa & Anr ____________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 10-07-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR
Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Ayiala Imti, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Rumi Chanda, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
———
