This C.C is coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri D. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri V. Madhu Babu, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the the complainant is the resident of Mangalagudem, Khammam Rural Mandal and District, opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of APE Vehicles situated at Khammam town and opposite party No.2 is the Insurance company.  The complainant submitted that he had purchased the Piaggio Company Ape truck Mark-I goods carriage LMV vide its registration No.AP-20TA-2767 from opposite party No.1, worth of Rs.2,75,000/-.  The complainant further submitted that initially he paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- at the time of  purchase and remaining balance amount was obtained through loan with hire purchase agreement from the Indus Ind Bank Ltd., Vijayawada.  The complainant also submitted that from the date of purchase the vehicle engine was disturbed and it was jammed, the vehicle was not run frequently on the road, it was happened 4 or 5 times, the complainant has taken the said problem to the knowledge of the opposite party No.1, accordingly the opposite party No.1 serviced the vehicle, the said problem is very much and frequently as such the complainant stopped for engine mechanism at opposite party No.1.  The complainant further submitted that  the vehicle was hardly run for 6 months and the said problem frequently even serviced by the opposite party No.1, the vehicle is having service warranty and also having valid insurance, surprisingly the vehicle engine was broken, complainant has brought the same to the knowledge of opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 not cared the words of the complainant and no service was given and bluntly refused to rectify the problem.  The complainant also submitted that due to failure of Engine he suffered financial loss for the negligent act of opposite party No.1, as such he is disturbed in payment of  the monthly installments, in general he is getting Rs.20,000/- per month, for the negligent act of opposite party No.1 the vehicle was damaged and the same was put in idle for which the complainant is suffering mentally and financially, as there is no other go the complainant filed this complaint.    

3.       On behalf of the complainant the following documents have been filed and marked as Ex.A1 to A7.

Ex.A.1:- Photocopy of Registration Certificate dt.17-06-2010.

Ex.A.2:- Photocopy of ownership record and data.

Ex.A.3:- Photocopy of Insurance cover note.

Ex.A.4:- Photocopy of Operation maintenance and warranty manual.

Ex.A.5:- Photocopy of Receipt issued by Indus Ind Bank Ltd., (Nos.2).

Ex.A.6:- Photocopy of Paid Service Coupons (Nos.2).

Ex.A.7:- Photographs (Nos.2).

4.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite part No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter the opposite party No.1 denied the averments made in the complaint except they are the dealers of the Ape vehicles and selling of Piaggio company Ape truck, the complainant purchased truck under hire purchase agreement of the Indus Ind Bank of Vijayawada Branch on monthly installments.  The opposite party No.1 submitted that they never refused nor neglected the complainant without doing services whenever he required, as such there is no negligence on their part for rendering services, the entire allegations such as stoppage of vehicle and negligent act of the opposite party No.1 and due to which the complainant’s vehicle kept in corner are totally false and in correct, for that the complainant unable to pay the monthly installments to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/-  and caused loss of Rs.50,000/- are false, the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and the cause of action as shown in the complaint is imaginary one and the same is invented for the purpose of filing the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint    

5.       The opposite party No.2 in their counter submitted that the insurance policy between the insurer and insured represents a contract between the parties, since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strict construed to determine the extent of liability from the insurer and the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.  The opposite party No.2 denied all the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint.  And also submitted that as per the version of the complainant, he has not submitted his claim with the opposite party No.2 company, claiming for damages, as such he cannot be claimed deficiency of service, hence this petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.   The opposite party No.2 further submitted that as per the insurance, the insurance amount will be paid only when the damages caused to the vehicle, but in the present case as per the version of the complainant, the vehicle itself is jammed and not running, if it is true, he shall claim the same with the dealer of the vehicle and Manufacturing company, because the insurance company is not be made liable for the defect of manufacturing, as such the complainant against the opposite party No.2 is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.       While the matter is pending the complainant filed petition to implead the financial bank and the manufacturer, vide IA.No.88/2013 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., and submitted that he filed the complaint against the respondents for the deficiency of service and defective vehicle  sold to him, from the date of purchase the vehicle Engine was disturbed frequently and it was jammed, which caused financial loss, according to the complainant the opposite party No.1 told him that the vehicle is having warranty for one year, warranty card also issued, as per the warranty card the opposite party No.1 failed to give proper service and the vehicle Engine was damaged and broken, the same was kept in corner, due to the act of opposite party No.1, the financial bank seized the vehicle and taken into custody by issuing the repossession inventory list and the same was kept at the financial authority, it is just and necessary to bring the real facts for the adjudication of the matter and the same was allowed.  Even after giving several adjournments the complainant failed to turn up to file neat copy and process against the impleading parties.    Hence the proposed parties i.e. Indus Ind Bank, Khammam and Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., Pune were not taken on the file as opposite parties No. 3 and 4.

 7.      Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

Point:-

          The case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of Ape Vehicle situated at Khammam and the opposite party No.2 is the Insurance Company. The complainant purchased the Piaggio company Ape truck Mark-I good carriage LMV by paying an amount of Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount was arranged by way of loan from Indus Ind Bank Limited, Vijayawada.   From the date of purchase the vehicle engine was distributed and it was jammed, the vehicle was not run frequently on the road, it was happened 4 or 5 times, the complainant has taken the said problem to the knowledge of the opposite party No.1, accordingly, the opposite party No.1 serviced the vehicle as per the warranty, to his sudden surprise the engine of the vehicle was broken, the same was taken to the knowledge of opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 failed to come forward to rectify the same even though the complainant vehicle is within warranty, as the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the problem, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.    

          It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties No.1 and the opposite party No.2 is the Insurance company.  As per the submission made by the complainant the opposite party No.1 has to render services and rectify the mechanical problems whenever he required as per the warranty.  As per the counter submitted by opposite party No.1, the said vehicle brought to the showroom by the complainant and same was rectified from time to time whenever the complainant bring the problem as per warranty and further submitted that the mechanic of opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to run the vehicle as per the rules and regulations of Manual on suitable roads, but the complainant without taking such care as prescribed in the manual and used the vehicle roughly on the metal road, for such usage of the vehicle he has been facing the mechanical problems again and again and they are rendering services whenever the complainant required as per the warranty and there is no deficiency on their part.  According to the opposite party No.1, the complainant never bring the notice in respect of broken Engine, as such the question of not caring the words of complainant does not arise.   The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his case for the rendering of negligent services by the opposite party No.1.  And also the complainant failed to produce any evidence for the deficiency of service against the opposite party No.2.  In view of the above circumstances this point is answered against the complainant.  

8.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of April, 2016.

      FAC PRESIDENT                     MEMBER

   DISTRICT CONSUEMR FORUM, KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.