Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/480/2011

NK Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ekansh Wheels - Opp.Party(s)

Brijesh Partap

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 480 of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution:12.05.2011

                                                                                       Date of decision: 20.01.2017.

NK Suresh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Chotu Ram, resident of House No. 1914, Ward No. 16, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Ekansh Wheels, Vill. Tepla, Jagadhri Road, Distt. Ambala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/ authorized Signatory.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Brijesh Partap, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

                None for respondent No.1

                Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.   

                Sh. V.K.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.   

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a Maruti Alto LXI BS III car bearing Engine No. 3783407, Chassis No. 1560288 from respondent No.1 ( hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) and the same was got insured with the OP No.3 vide policy No. 70956302 w.e.f. 29.01.2010 to 28.01.2011. The OPs No.1 & 2 had given the warranty and guarantee in all respect of the said car for one year. Thereafter, the complainant got registered the said car vide Registration No. HR02-V/6616. On 01.08.2010, the complainant was going to Sadhaura, where suddenly the block of car was blast and then the complainant called to Maruti Service Station at Sadhaura and the complainant took the vehicle there. After inspection, they asked the complainant to approach Op No.1 because the car has manufacturing defect and the report regarding the defect will be prepared by the OP No.1 and will be sent to company for proper proceeding. The complainant took the vehicle at Op No.1 where after checking asked the complainant that there is some defect in shelf system and asked that the said defect is neither covered under warranty nor under insurance, but the complainant was not satisfy with the asking of Op No.1. Thereafter, the complainant took the said car to Pandit Automobiles, Jagadhri who after inspection and checking told the complainant that the block of the car was blast and hydraulic system of car was seized, upon which the complainant asked about the reason, they disclosed that the said defect is manufacturing defect and defect is not removable and only new block will be replaced. The complainant had also given the intimation to Op No.3 Insurance Company through telephone, regarding defect in the car but OpNo.3 also have never sent its surveyor nor given any response in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to OPs No.1 & 2 but they refused to change/replace the block or the vehicle under warranty or insurance. When the OPs No.1 & 2 did not redress the grievances of the complainant and refused to change/replace the block then the complainant got changed the engine of car from Pandit Automobiles, Jagadhri by spending amount from his own pocket and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant after receiving the entire payment by Pandit Automobiles, Jagadhri. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation on account of replacement of block and misc. expenses as well as mental agony, harassment and further to pay litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Hon’ble Forum. In fact, the vehicle in question was damaged due to floods and the complainant was negligent to maintain the vehicle and it is specifically mentioned in warranty conditions that the warranty shall not be applicable on any natural wear and tear so the vehicle in question is not covered under the warranty clause and on merit it has been submitted that on 07.08.2010 when the complainant brought his vehicle for inspection, the official of OP No.1 inspected the vehicle and after inspection it was found that the car in question was flood affected and due to that flood, a rainy water entered into the engine block and due to this hydraulic system was blocked and this fact was very much explained and fully informed to the complainant by Op No.1 and the remarks in this regard on the job sheet of the vehicle was also mentioned in writing and the complainant himself took his car back. In fact, the complainant has filed the said false complaint to harass and humiliate the OP No.1 by leveling false allegations. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.2 as defined u/s 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant cannot be allowed to raise any claim against the Op No.2 which is not covered under the ambit of warranty. The complainant drove the vehicle in water/flood whereupon and water entered into the engine of the vehicle and resulted in “Hydrostatic Lock” and repairs were to be carried out on chargeable basis. The said details were noted in the job card of Op No.1 and also informed to the complainant as evident from the remarks on the job card. The act of the complainant substantiates negligent and careless use of vehicle in question grossly violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy as enumerated in Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. The warranty obligations of the OP to the vehicle in question stands concluded on 07.08.2010; complaint is false and frivolous, the allegations made in the purported complaint are out of the scope and ambit of the allegations, as required by section 2(1)( c) of the Act and on merit all the allegations have been denied being wrong and incorrect. Besides this, it has been stated that Op No.2 is a reputed car manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles (cars) in India for more than 25 years and the relation between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 are that of principal to Principal basis only as per agreement executed between the OPs. It has been submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP No.1 for obtaining 1^st free inspection service on 27.02.2010 at 950 KMs and at the workshop of M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd. Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh for obtaining 2^nd free inspection service on 28.07.2010 at 5491 KMs. At the time of obtaining said services, the complainant did not point out any problem and obtained normal services as per periodic maintenance schedule enumerated in the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet. It has been further submitted that as per record the complainant lastly sent the vehicle at the workshop of M/s Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Radour for obtaining running repairs on 04.03.2011 at 10059 Kms. The complainant failed to abide by warranty terms and with an afterthought to obtain unjust gains has filed this false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. 

5.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant never intimated or lodged any claim with the OP No.3; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit denied all the facts mentioned in the complaint. Moreover, there is no accidental case at present occurrence is not covered under the policy in question. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against the OP No.3.

6.                     To prove the  case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A and documents such as Photo copy of insurance certificate cum policy schedule as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Certificate issued by Pandit Automobile as Annexure C-2, Invoice/ cash memo as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of service job card issued by Berkeley Automobiles Ltd. as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of Service Booklet alongwith maintenance record as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of Registration Certificate as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

7.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence, its evidence was closed by court order dated 25.07.2016.

8.                     Counsel for Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Suender Kumar  Assistant General Manager as Annexure RW2/a  and documents such as Photo copy of Dealership Agreement as Annexure R2/1, Photo copy of Job cards of Eakansh Wheels as Annexure R2/2 to Annexure R2/4, Photo copy of demand repairs & Job Instruction Capturing sheet issued by Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure R-2/5 and Photo copy of job order card issued by Pandit Automobile as Annexure R-2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

9.                     Counsel for Op No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Samain Singh, Administrative Officer, NIC as Annexure RW3/A and document such as Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

10.                   We have heard the counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for Op No.2 &3 and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

11.                   It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Car Maruti Alto LXI BS III bearing registration No. HR-02V-6616 model 2010 from the Op No.1 i.e. Eakansh Wheels, Village Tepla, District Ambala manufactured by Op No.2 i.e. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Gurgaon. It is also not disputed that the car in question was insured w.e.f. 29.01.2010 to 28.01.2011 with OP No.3 i.e. National Insurance Company Limited which is duly evident from the copy of Insurance Policy Annexure C-1.

12                    The only grievances of the complainant is that he was getting the service of the car in question regularly and he got serviced his vehicle lastly on 28.07.2010 from the Service Centre/ Authorized Service Centre Berkeley Automobiles Ltd, Chandigarh which is duly evident from copy of job card Annexure C-4 and when he was going to Sadhaura, suddenly the block of the car was blast and then the complainant called to the Maruti Service Station at Sadhaura and they called the vehicle at Service Station. After inspection, they asked the complainant to approach Op No.1 i.e. Eakansh Wheels, Village Tepla, District Ambala because the car in question was having manufacturing defect and report regarding the defect will be prepared by the OP No.1. Upon which, the complainant took the vehicle at the service centre of the OP No.1 on 02.08.2010, where after checking asked the complainant that there is some defect in the shelf system and asked that the said defect is neither covered under the warranty nor under the insurance but the complainant was not satisfied. After that complainant repaired his vehicle from the Pandit Automobiles, Jagadhri against the payment and the block of the vehicle was replaced. After that complainant asked the OPs to refund the amount spent on the repair but the Ops totally refused to do so.

13.                   From the above noted facts, it is clearly evident that complainant purchased the car in question from the Op No.1 i.e. Eakansh Wheels Village Tepla, District Ambala manufactured by Op No.2 i.e. M/s Maruti Udyog ltd. Gurgaon and lastly got serviced his vehicle on 28.07.2010 from M/s Berkeley Automobiles Ltd, Chandigarh and further the Op No.1 refused to replace the defective block of the car in question. Furthermore, the complainant has not impleaded the Pandit Automobiles Limited, Jagadhri as party from where he got repaired his car against payment, if any. Further, the complainant has totally failed to prove that any cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Although the office of the OP No.3 is situated at Yamuna Nagar but the complainant has also not placed on file any documents vide which he lodged the claim with the Op No.3 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. whereas  Op No.3 has specifically taken the plea that no such claim has ever been lodged by the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

14.                   In the circumstances noted above and without commenting on the merit of the case, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost being without territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/Forum for redressal of his grievance, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583.The Assistant is directed to return the original documents, if any, to the complainant after retaining the photo copies of the same on the file. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.20.01.2017.

 

                                    (S.C.SHARMA)                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                     MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT,