Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 701.
Instituted on : 11.12.2017.
Decided on : 08.02.2022.
Hemant Kumar age 35 years, s/o sh. Satnam Singh, resident of House no.831/32 Tej Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Honda Cars India Limited, Head Office Address: Plot No.A-1, Sector-40/41, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh-201306, through its Managing Director/Head.
- SPL Motors Pvt. Authorized Dealers for Honda Cars India Ltd., Mile Stone-46/1, Opp.-LPS, Hisar Road, Rothak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K.Vaid, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Satbir Nehra, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was owner of a Car i.e.Honda Amaze VX MT bearing No.HR-99ZP-2224 and the same was insured with respondents vide policy/cover note no.SER-RSA-DD125-1617-326. The above said car was purchased on 07.02.2017 by the complainant from authorized dealer of Honda Cars India Limited i.e. SPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rohtak. The total cost of above said car was paid to the dealer by the complainant and since then the car had been insured under roadside assistance insurance and the policy no.SER-RSA-DD125-1617-326 but in this respect the Roadside Assistance Insurance certificate had not been issued by the officials of the said Honda Car dealer at the time of taking payment. When the complainant demanded for RSA insurance certificate many times from the respondent no.2, the same was denied on one pretext or the other. On 23.02.2017 the alleged car met with an accident in the area of Delhi Road, Near Ismaila Flyover, Rohtak and was badly damaged. Complainant informed the opposite party within time for preliminary assistance i.e. facility of Crane, first aid and initially help for injured/aggrieved person. But the call center representative of Honda Car Co. flatly denied togive the facility of roadside assistance assurance to the complainant. Respondents demanded Rs.20000/- from the complainant to lifting the car through crane service and providing other first aid facility. On 24.02.2017 respondent no.2 also made a receipt/certificate qua Roadside Assistance insurance of Rs.1796/- but the said premium amount had already taken from the complainant on dated 07.02.2017 by the respondent no.2. After 24.02.2017 the car of complainant was standing more than one month in Honda Company’ s service station and the condition of the said car was in total loss and had to sell in junk. The complainant’s car was hypothecated under the car loan facility of HDFC Bank and the loan amount of Rs.497237/- was paid to respondent no.2 by HDFC Bank and remaining amount of Rs.289763/- as margin money paid to respondent no.2 by the complainant from his pocket on date dated 07.02.2017. The total cost of car was Rs.759876/-. Despite the RSA insurance, complainant had to spent all the service station expenses of Rs.15000/- and crane expenses of Rs.2000/-. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.759876/- plus service station expenses of Rs.15000, crane expenses of Rs.2000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that the grievance of the complainant is that he was not provided roadside assistance at the time of accident by the opposite parties. In this regard, it is submitted that opposite party No.1 is only a car manufacturer company and does not provide any roadside assistance directly. The opposite party No.1 has entered into arrangement with India Roadside Assistance Pvt. Ltd. for providing the roadside assistance to its customers. Therefore opposite party No.1 has no role to play in the present complaint and the name of the opposite party no.1 is liable to be deleted from the array of parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has availed the service of roadside Assistance Private Limited for which consideration was paid to opposite party no.2 There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 for providing any roadside assistance for the vehicle purchased by him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the other hand, notice sent to opposite party no.2 received back duly served. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.01.2018 of this Commission.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2019. At the time of arguments two documents
Annexure JN-A and annexure JN-B were also placed on record by ld. Counsel for the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and document Ex.OP1/A to OP1/B and has closed his evidence on dated 04.03.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the complainant’s allegations are that the road side assistance has not been provided by the respondents as promised by the respondents at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question. To prove this fact complainant has placed on record certain documents. The Ex.C1 is a rough estimate provided by the respondent no.2 prior to the purchase of vehicle in question. The perusal of this documents itself shows that the cost of the vehicle is mentioned as Rs.759876/-. After adding the amount on account of Ins., EW, RSA, TRC the total amount comes to Rs.797000/-. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.10000/- on dated 06.02.2017 as cash. In this way an amount of Rs.787000/- has been outstanding against the complainant for purchase of the vehicle. An amount of Rs.497237/- has been advanced as loan amount by the HDFC Bank to the complainant and this amount has been directly paid to the company. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.289073/- through cheque no.948485. To prove the same he has placed on record photocopy of statement of account as Annexure-JN-A. The bare perusal of this document itself shows that on dated 09.02.2017 an amount of Rs.289073/- has been paid through cheque. The complainant also placed on record a document Annexure JN-B, the bank receipt issued by SPL Motors Pvt. Limited and through this document it has been proved that an amount of Rs.497237 has been received by the respondent no.2 on dated 08.02.2017. In this way a total estimated amount has been received by the respondent. The bare perusal of the estimate itself shows that an amount of Rs.1796/- has been received by respondent no.2 on account of roadside assistance. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 23.02.2017 and he demanded roadside assistance from the respondent no.2 but they refused for the same and demanded Rs.20000/-. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. However neither any amount of RSA was deposited with opposite party No.1 nor there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of decision failing which, opposite party no.2 shall be liable to pay Rs.100/- per week to the complainant in addition to the alleged awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.02.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
