Haryana

StateCommission

A/615/2014

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Frontier Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.615 of 2014

Date of the Institution: 04/18.07.2014

Date of Decision: 03.08.2016

 

 

Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.Rajmal Singh R/o A-32, Sainik Nagar, Matiala, New Delhi.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

HDGC ERGO General Insurance Co. 201, Second Floor,Seva Corporate Suits, MG Road, Gurgaon Behind Karan Petroleum through its authorized representative.

                                                                   .…. Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sandeep Suri,  Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased a car from opposite party (O.P.) No.3 insured by O.P.No2/respondent.  O.P.Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shown as respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 were deleted from memorandum of parties in appeal as per statement of counsel for the appellant.  It was alleged that on 19.05.2011 due to speed breaker and pit bottom of the car hit the same and engine oil leaked. He gave information to World Class Automobiles Private Limited and was advised to take vehicle to O.P.No.1. authorized agent of O.P.No.4. After inspection it was told that cost of repair would be approximately Rs.20,000/-.  On 23.05.2011 it was told that starter was also to be replaced costing Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- approximately.  He asked O.P.No.4 to bear the expenses of the same because the car was within warranty. On 03.06.2011 O.P.No.1 told that self-starter was not available and could be replaced as and when received from Germany.  In the meantime Rs.1000/- would be re-imbursed per day.  After few days when he went to take delivery of vehicle it was told by officials of O.P.No.1 that engine was to be opened and it would cost Rs.One lac.  He contacted O.P.No.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount, but, it refused to reimburse any amount because vehicle was within warranty period. Due to non-availability of vehicle, he was forced  to hire taxi @ Rs.1000/- per day from 20.05.2011. The O.Ps. be directed to refund the same alongwith Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs.50,000/- for loss of his business.  They be also and directed to replace the vehicle if there was beyond repairs.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed the reply controverting his averments and alleged that car suffered damaged due to it’s mis-handling by complainant.  It was brought to workshop on 21.05.2011 with the problem of chamber damage.  It was not liable to pay any amount qua loss of business, hiring taxi etc. because there was no fault on it’s part.  It was not responsible to replace starter etc. 

3.      O.P.Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex parte before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”). Lateron O.P.No.1 was also proceeded against ex parte on 28.05.2012.

4.      O.P.No.4 alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and it was not liable to pay any damage caused due to accident.  It was the responsibility of the insurance company to pay the same.

5.      After hearing counsel for the complainant and O.P.No.4, learned District forum held complainant entitled for refund of Rs.20,000/- alongwith the interest @ 9% from O.P.No.1 and 4,  besides litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal for directing insurance company to pay about the remaining expenses.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that he spent huge amount on the repair of the car and insurance company was liable to pay the same keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court expressed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Khursheed and Anr. decided on  22.03.2011.

9.      This argument is of no avail.  As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that bottom of the car hit the speed breaker due to which chamber was damaged and there was oil leak.  Even thereafter he drove the car continuously due to which further  damage was caused.  It is clear that damage was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the complainant.  He has not taken proper care of the vehicle and the damage was not covered under the warranty.  Learned District forum rightly opined that the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. When the oil had leaked he should have stopped the car there and then.  Findings of learned district Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

 

August 03rd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.