DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 121 of 21.3.2016
Decided on: 6.4.2017
Ranjit Singh S/o Charan Singh R/o Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Dhakansu Kalan, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Hemant Goyal Motors(P) Ltd. Rajpura Road Patiala through its Authorized Dealer of TATA Motors.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited having its Head Office Building 87, M.G.Road Fort Mumbai through its Branch Office, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.H.S.Chauhan,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.
Sh.S.R.Bansal,Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1
Sh.Sandeep Singh Ahuja,Advocate, counsel
for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Ranjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To deliver the new car to him and
- To pay Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 8.4.2015, he purchased a car make Tata Zest bearing registration No.PB11 BS 5029 and chassis No.MAT624027EPJ22926 from Op No.1. having paid Rs.1,89,225/- as booking amount. The above said vehicle is insured with OP no.3.It is averred that before purchasing the said vehicle an estimated form was drawn by OP no.1, which was duly stamped and signed, in which it described the full amount alongwith cash discount and real saleable price of the car. However, the said vehicle was hypothecated from Axis Bank and the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.5,92,000/- and he paid an amount of Rs.7,81,225/- in total to OP No.1.At the time of dealing with the OP, it assured that the insurance policy was bumper to bumper and it charged for the policy an amount of Rs.28000/- and in case of incident/accident of the vehicle, need not to pay a single penny on the repair of the vehicle. It is also assured by them that in case of any damage to the vehicle or more than 60%, the company will provide new car to him.On 16.8.2015, the car met with an accident near Doraha when the same was driven by him. The vehicle was damaged morethan 75%.The same was taken to OP no.1 for doing the repair work. It is averred that it was settled rule that when the access amount is more than 75% of the whole damage, then the insurance company would provide new vehicle, but the OPs failed to do so. After the repair of the vehicle, the OP provided him a receipt of memo , having described the total loss and the amount payable by him before taking the delivery of the repaired vehicle. It is averred that on perusing the insurance document, it came to his notice that the insured amount of the vehicle is Rs.6,81,457/- but at the time of purchasing the vehicle, the OP charged Rs.6,90,986/- from him and has also charged Rs.89,225/- towards RC and insurance of the vehicle. However, the net payable amount to the insurance company is Rs.11,371/- while the OP no.1 charged Rs.28000/- in this regard.It is further averred that the OP no.1 has already received Rs.4,40,000/- from the insurance company as claim of the accidental car.It is stated that the car in question is not running properly due to several defects in it inspite of repair work done by OP no.1. He visited the office of OP no.1 on several times and requested for the removal of the defects of the car or to deliver the new car as peer their assurance and rules but OP no.1 always put the matter off on one pretext or the other. He also got sent a legal notice dated 15.2.2016 upon it but while filing reply to the legal notice, it flatly refused to give any relief to him. He also sent a letter to Tata Motors against OP no.1 but Tata Motor also did not take any action against OP no.1.There is thus deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment due to indifferent attitude of the OPs.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written version. In the written version filed by OP no.1, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the above said car and paid Rs.1,89,225/- as booking amount. Paras no,2,3,4,5,8 and 9 of the complaint are stated to be matter of record. It is further stated that Tata Motors, the manufacturer of the vehicle, has not been impleaded as proper and necessary party. It is stated that the vehicle received in accidental position was properly attended to. There is no deficiency of service on its part. The OP no.1 denied all other averments made in the complaint and has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version filed by Op no.2, it has taken preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands having concealed material facts. On merits, it is stated that it has having tipup with OP no.1 for cashless service under TMI agreement subject to standard deductions as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that on 19.8.2015, the complainant informed it regarding the accident of his vehicle and for sending the same to it for repair. It is stated that the loss / damaged to the vehicle was to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- was incurred by it, out of this Rs.1000/-was deducted as standard documents deductions and Rs.5000/- for salvage and remaining payment of Rs.2,60,002/- was paid to OP no.1. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with it for annual premium of Rs.11371/- under private car package policy and claim for loss incurred by OP no.1 had already been paid by it to OP no.1, under cashless service policy.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his duly sworn affidavit ,Ex.CB, affidavit of Sh.Devinder Singh, mechanic alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C24 and his counsel closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 stated that the written version filed on behalf of OP no.1 may be read as part of evidence, and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for Op no.2 tendered, the documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5, and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Admittedly, the car of the complainant, which he purchased from OP no.1 on 8.4.2015, met with an accident. In order to get it repaired, he took it to OP no.1. The grievance of the complainant is that the Op No.1 did not repair the same properly as it used to pull towards driver side and plying the same on the road may endanger his life and his family. He requested the OP no.1 to set it right and make it roadworthy. But it did not pay any heed to his request and in reply to the legal notice, served upon it, refused to repair the same.
8. Whereas the stand of OP no.1 is that the accidental car of the complainant was duly repaired to his satisfaction and to this effect he has given the satisfaction note .
The ld. counsel for Op no.2 argued that since the OP no.2 being insurer had already indemnified the complainant by paying the repair charges to OP no.1.Therefore, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing the services.
9. On perusal of the record, it transpires, that the satisfaction note is on the record but OP No.1 did not tender the same in evidence. It may be stated that if, a person, at the time of taking the delivery of his/her repaired vehicle, gives satisfactions note, then it does not de-bar him / her from approaching the repairer, if he/she, finds any defects, after plying repaired car on the road. It is the case of the complainant that when he plied the car in question, after repair, on road, he found that it was not roadworthy and he approached OP No.1 for removal of defects and requested to to make it roadworthy, but it refused to do so. It may be stated that, being a repairer, it was the bounded duty of OP no.1, to set the car of the complainant right and make it roadworthy either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s). Since the car in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy, therefore, the OP no.2 being insurer, is also duty bound to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him. However, no liability can be fastened against the Ops to replace the car in question with the new as desired by the complainant.
10. In this view of the matter, we hereby dispose of the complaint with a direction to the complainant to take his car to OP no.1 for its repair within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. We also direct the OP no.1 to make the car in question roadworthy either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s). The General Manager of OP no.1 shall issue a certificate to the effect that the car in question is roadworthy and it will not endanger the life of the complainant and his family. The roadworthy car be handed over to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the car from the complainant. The OP no.2 is also directed to bear the cost of replaced part(s), if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the bill from OP no.1. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:6.4.2017 NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
