Haryana

Karnal

CC/187/2021

Sat Narain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aaryaman Autos KIA (Authorized Dealer KIA Motors India) - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sachdeva

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 187 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.26.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:18.03.2024

 

Sat Narain son of Shri Bhana Ram @ Jai Bhagwann, resident of village Muana, tehsil Safidon, District Jind, age 61. Mobile no.9896385007.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Aaryaman Autos KIA (authorized dealer KIA Motors India), 117/6 KM stone G.T.Road Karnal near Neelkanth Dhaba, District Karnal through its manager/authorized person.
2. KIA Motors India limited office at-NH-7, Penukonda Road, Adadakkulapalle, Andhra Pradesh-515110 through its M.D/authorized person.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. registered office at-Tower D Twelth floor, Global Business park Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Haryana-122002 through its Manager/authorized person.

       

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Amit Sachdeva, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri S.S.Chauhan, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 given, vide order dated 02.03.2022.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.3.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a car KIA Sonet from OP no.1. At the time of purchase, the person over the said OP no.1 advised to get insured the vehicle/car from their agent i.e. ICICI Lombard and it was assured that in case of any eventuality in regard to any damage/theft of car, the OP no.1 will get the claim processed with OP no.3 immediately and no issue will be faced by complainant as the OP no.3 is the agent of OP no.1. The complainant got insured the car from OP no.3 through OP no.1 and paid the premium of Rs.32,869/-. The period of insurance was from 28.10.2020 to 27.10.2021. After the car got insured, complainant started using the car, but unfortunately on 03.02.2021, the said car met with an accident while going from Narwana to Jind. The car collided with a divider and the car was badly damaged due to the accident. The complainant immediately informed to OPs no.1 and 3 regarding accident and the vehicle was brought to OP no.1 on 05.02.2021 for repair being authorized service center/dealer of KIA. The complainant provided all the relevant documents to OP no.1, OP no.1 processed the claim with OP no.3 on same day. The OP no.1 issued a job card/estimate of repair, but no amount was mentioned in the said job card. The service manager of OP no.1 received the vehicle and assured the complainant that the claim of damage of vehicle has been raised and Op no.1 will hand over the repaired vehicle to complainant within 10 days as some parts are to be replaced and request for issuing  those parts will have to be raised with company i.e. OP no.2. As per the assurance of service manager of OP no.1, the complainant approached the OP no.1 after 10 days i.e. on 15.02.2021 and enquired about the car, but he was surprised to know that the car was not repaired and was lying with there as it is. The complainant enquired with Manoj Kumar about the status of repair of car, but he showed his incapability to handover the car on the pretext that the said required parts for car were not received from company and asked the complainant to wait for some days. After waiting approximately for 10 more days, the complainant again approached the service centre of OP no.1 and met Manoj Kumar (Service Manager) and again requested to handover the repaired car, but again the same lame excuse was given by Manoj Kumar on the pretext that the required parts were not received. OPs are not providing service to complainant and there is grave deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the OPs. The complainant has spent huge amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs (including insurance, R.C. Charges and cost of car) in hope that the car will be for complainant for his day to day traveling needs, but due to the irresponsible act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has to suffer a lot being deprived of using the car since 05.02.2021 till today, the car of complainant is with OP no.1 still lying without repair. Finding no other way, complainant was constrained to buy a used car ALTO for his day to day travelling requirements. The complainant is a senior citizen. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant was forced to spend an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- for purchasing another car. The complainant contacted OP no.2 being manufacturer of the car and spare parts and apprised them about all the facts, but till today no satisfactory answer has been provided. Complainant also contacted the OP no.3 being insurer and asked about the claim of car but they showed their inability. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle no.HR-33H-5524 was badly damaged in the accident. There was no delay on the part of the OP no.1. The delay was due to result of the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and the technical parts were to be procured from different places, which is a time consuming process. Due to these reasons, sufficient time was required for repair/readiness of the vehicle in question. Therefore, delay was neither intentional nor malafide, but due to the reasons explained above, which were beyond the control of the OP as well as KIA India. The vehicle was duly repaired by the OP to the complete satisfaction of the complainant. The repair work of the vehicle was completed on 02.04.2021. OP no.1 had telephonically informed the complainant on 02.04.2021 in this regard but he took delivery of the repaired vehicle on 05.04.2021. The complainant was fully satisfied with the repairs done on the vehicle. After running the car 2000Kms, the complainant came for servicing of the car on 25.05.2021 and was satisfied with the work done on the vehicle and even signed the customer satisfaction note dated 25.05.2021. The present complaint filed by the complainant clearly shows malafide intention on the part of the complainant since the vehicle has been repaired and delivered to the entire satisfaction of complainant. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of the OP no.1 for repair, after two days of alleged accident i.e. 05.02.2021. The survey was done on 06.02.2021. Being a major accident case, a tentative estimate of Rs.4,02,399/- was made and the same was submitted to the insurance company. This was done in a timely manner and thereafter, repair work commencement approval was received on 16.02.2021 from the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant being unnecessary party, vide his statement dated 02.03.2022.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that there is no role of OP. The alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the OPs no.1 and 2 failed to repair the car of complainant in time as parts of the car were not available. No relief has been sought from the OP, so the present complaint deserves dismissal qua OP no.3.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of repair order Ex.C2, copy of RC Ex.C3, copy of invoice Ex.C4, copy of pollution certificate Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 09.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Kumar, Manager Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2, copy of repair estimate Ex.OP3, copy of manual job card Ex.OP4, copy of email to insurance company for repair approval Ex.OP5, copy of reminder for approval Ex.OP6, copy of order for parts Ex.OP7 to Ex.OP9, copy of chatt Ex.OP10, copy of mail to insurance for delivery order Ex.OP11, copy of invoice Ex.OP12, copy of details of parts Ex.OP13, copy of payment receipts Rs.1200/- Ex.OP14, copy of satisfaction voucher Ex.OP15, copy of job card for service Ex.OP16, copy of customer satisfaction card Ex.OP17, copy of case detail: chronology Ex.OP18 and Ex.OP19, copy of stock order Ex.OP20, authority letter Ex.OP21 and closed the evidence on 04.05.2021 by suffering separate statements.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a car KIA Sonet from OP no.1. On 03.02.2021, the said car met with an accident and was badly damaged. The vehicle was brought to OP no.1 being authorized service center/dealer of KIA for repair. The complainant provided all the relevant documents to OP.  OP processed the claim with OP no.3 on the  same day. The service manager of OP no.1 received the vehicle and assured the complainant that the claim of damage of the vehicle has been raised and Op no.1 will hand over the repaired vehicle to complainant within 10 days but OPs could not handover the repaired vehicle for a long time and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that there was no delay on the part of the OP no.1 for repair of the vehicle. The delay was a result of the ongoing pandemic, lockdown. The delay was neither intentional nor malafide, but due to the reasons, which were beyond the control of the OPs. The repair work of the vehicle was completed on 02.04.2021 and complainant took the delivery of the repaired vehicle on 05.04.2021. The complainant was fully satisfied with the repairs done on the vehicle, as after running 2000Kms, the complainant came for servicing on 25.05.2021 and was satisfied with the work done on the vehicle and even signed the customer satisfaction note dated 25.05.2021. The present complaint filed by the complainant clearly shows malafide intention on the part of the complainant since the vehicle has been repaired and delivered to the entire satisfaction of complainant. A tentative estimate of Rs.4,02,399/- was made and the same was submitted to the insurance company. The repair work commencement approval was received on 16.02.2021 from the insurance company and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has argued that there is no role of OP. The OPs no.1 and 2 failed to repair the car of complainant in time as parts of the car were not available. No relief has been sought from the OP no.3 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.3

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           The vehicle in question met with an accident on 05.02.2021 and brought in the workshop of OP no.1. Complainant has alleged that the Manager of the OP no.1 assured him the vehicle will be repaired within 10 days but OP no.1 failed to repair the same within time as promised by the OP no.1. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file that OP no.1 has assured the complainant that vehicle will be repaired in a short span of time. Rather,  as per OP no.1  delay was a result of ongoing pandemic lockdown and technical parts were to be procured from different places, which is a time consuming process. Due to that reason sufficient time was required for repair of the vehicle in question.

14.           Undisputedly, in those days there was ongoing pandemic lockdown and delay occurred due to that, which was beyond the control of the OP. Moreover, after repair the vehicle in question was handed over to the complainant on 05.04.2021 and complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle without any protest.  The accident took place on 05.02.2021 and complainant has filed the present complaint on 26.03.2021 without considering the current situation. The possession of the vehicle has already been taken by the complainant. While considering the situation in those days, we are of the considered view that there is no delay on the part of the OP to handover the vehicle to the complainant.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.03.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.       

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member