CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.129/2013
SH. C.L KAPOOR
R/O 692, SECTOR-37
NOIDA ,U.P
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S C.E. INFOSYSTEM PVT.LTD.
68, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA
PHASE-III, NEW DELHI
- M/S AUTOWORLD
AB-37/38, CENTRAL AUTO MARKET
SECTOR-16, NOIDA
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 24.01.2019
O R D E R
H.C SURI – MEMBER
Mr. C.L. Kapoor has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s C.E. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., OP-1 and M/s Autoworld, OP-2, submitting that the complainant had purchased a GPS tracking system from OP-2 on 20.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.15,900/- against bill no.369, for being installed in his Scorpio Vehicle bearing Regn.No.UP-14AH-8254, he was advised that his vehicle would be safe from any theft or loss as the said GPS system is fool-proof. It is submitted that OP-2 is a dealer of OP-1. It is submitted that on 1.10.2011, the vehicle of the complainant was stolen while it was parked in front of his residence despite the GPS tracking system having been duly installed therein, because the GPS tracking system could not function or provide any data and that due to its non-functioning, the complainant has suffered a huge loss. It is further submitted by the complainant that a letter dated 18.4.2012 was sent to the OPs to reimburse the loss incurred by the complainant due to non-functioning and non-performance of the said system but the OPs did not reply nor could the vehicle be traced out. Thereafter a legal notice dated 10.9.2012 was sent to the OPs but no steps to trace out the vehicle were taken nor was the notice replied to. The complainant submits that there is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It is submitted that the complainant had been partly compensated by the insurance company but there is difference of total loss suffered by the complainant and reimbursed by the insurance company with which his vehicle was insured. The total loss suffered was Rs.6,47,427/- but the insurance company reimbursed only Rs.4,39,000/- thus leaving a balance of Rs.2,08,427/-, apart from Rs.1,00,000/- being claimed by the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.22000/- on account of forced litigation, which totals up to Rs.3,30,427/-. The complainant also prays that the OPs might be directed to pay Rs.3,30,427/- with interest.
The OP-1 filed reply and submitted that the complainant is not maintainable because the complainant has approached the forum even after the insurance company has indemnified him for the loss suffered and it has been filed with a mala fide intention to obtain monetary benefits in the form of compensation and damages. It is submitted by the OP that the complainant approached the OP after the vehicle was stolen and it is evident that the person stealing the vehicle had immediately disabled the hardware of the tracking device fitted in the vehicle to prevent it from being tracked or traced and therefore in such circumstances it is not possible for the OP to track or trace the vehicle. It is submitted that the hardware and its software combined together only can perform the function of tracking/monitoring as provided by the OP in normal circumstances but when one part of the device i.e. hardware is missing, the software by itself cannot provide any information about the vehicle’s location. It is further submitted that under the doctrine of Subrogation, if the insured has been indemnified for the loss then as a matter of right, only an insurer can pursue a third party that caused the loss to the insured. Since the complainant has already been indemnified by the insurance company for the loss suffered due to the theft of the car, the complainant cannot claim the same from the OPs. It is submitted that the device is actually an on-board computer with GPS and wireless communication capabilities that transfers all the relevant information from the vehicle to the fleet management centre. It is submitted that it is completely unacceptable and unbelievable that the complainant actually believed that installing a GPS device would be a foolproof prevention against any kind of theft. The OP denies all the contents of the complainant and submits that the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the OP as he has already been indemnified by the insurer and the OP has no obligation under the law to pay any amount whatsoever. The OP has submitted that the complaint might be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed its rejoinder to the reply filed by the OP-1, whereby the contents of the reply are stated to be wrong and denied and the allegations made in the complaint are stated to be correct and reaffirmed.
The parties, except OP-2, filed their respective evidence by way of affidavits and deposed on oath the facts and averments mentioned in the respective pleadings. The complainant and OP-1 filed Written submissions, Additional submissions also.
We have carefully gone through the case file, and are of the considered view that it is proved from record that vehicle of the complainant was duly insured and the company has duly indemnified the complaint for this great loss paid a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- that is IDV of the vehicle.
Moreover, it is to be seen whether there was any deficiency in service on part of OP. It is significant to note that the GPS tracking system installed in the car was duly working. The above claim of the complainant cannot stand in view of the fact that the GPS tracking system installed in the car was working perfectly as per he terms and conditions of sale. Exhibit-OP-1/4 filed alongwith the affidavit of evidence of OP no.1, clearly show the entire track record of the vehicle from 15.09.2011 to 30.09.2011.
The vehicle, as per the complainant was stolen on 01.10.2011 and the GPS tracking system installed in the car was either deactivated or disabled or removed by the thieves due to which the GPS tracking system was unable to record further movement of the vehicle after the theft.
OP no. 1 has clearly stated in the warranty card (Exhibit-OP-1/3) that OP-1 has not liable for any claim against theft of the vehicle in any manner.
The vary fact that the tracking system was working properly. No fault lies with OP. It is a matter of common knowledge that the thief invariable deactivated or disable or remove the tracking system. No deficiency in service is made by OP. Complaint dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
