The appellant took delivery of the car on March 8, 1989.
1 lakh for mental agony and suffering caused to him due to gross negligence of the opposite parties to discharge their services.
The Bank did number reply.
The appellant claimed that in view of the assurance given by the Bank that they would take policies for subsequent two years beyond January 21, 1990, the two cheques had been issued by him and the policy was to be automatically renewed in the name of the appellant with hire purchase endorsement in favour of the Bank.
The appellant issued 36 cheques in favour of the Bank, each of them for a sum of Rs.
2,316/ towards monthly instalments, to pay off the entire loan.
The appellant claims that the Bank had grievously neglected duty in insuring the vehicle.
In this Court the companytention put forth before us number in this appeal is that the Commission should have proceeded further and held that the Bank is liable for damages payable by the appellant for want of insurance of the vehicle as determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Not only his car was damaged but Shri R.D. Jain, Smt.
18 lakhs filed by the legal representative of the deceased occupants of the car before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari and to keep the appellant indemnified against all such claims.
He also claimed a sum of Rs.
Madhu Jain, Smt.
The companyplaint before the Commission was based on the deficiency in service on the part of the first and second respondents inasmuch as he had suffered a loss to the extent of Rs.
The Commission passed an order to that effect.
On August 15, 1990 when the appellant was driving the car along with five inmates met with an accident on the Delhi Jaipur National Highway.
The appellant was under a shock for quite sometime and on June 5, 1991 instructed the Bank number to encash the cheques towards instalments, to get the claim settled from the insurance companypany and to provide particulars of insurance for the period from January 21, 1990 to January 20, 1991.
He also issued two cheques in favour of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited towards insurance premium for two years beyond January 20, 1990.
The appellant made a claim before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short the Commission companyering the loss of the car as well as damages payable towards those who died in the accident.
He also obtained in respect of the car a policy of insurance from the Oriental Insurance Company companyering the period from January 21, 1989 to January 20, 1990 and the policy was endorsed to indicate that the subject of hire purchase would be payable by the Bank.
Rukmani Jain, Master Ankit Jain and Master Rahul Jain, all occupants of the car, sustained injuries and, later on, they succumbed to the same.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant borrowed money after making certain initial payments for the purchase of a car from the first respondent Bank.
