APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Appellant | : | Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar, Advocate |
PRONOUNCED ON: 9th MAY, 2016 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The impugned order dated 26.11.2014, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 26/2014, Sanjay Jain vs. Honda Cars India Ltd. & Anr., dismissing the said complaint, has been challenged in this First Appeal, filed by the complainant. It has been averred that although the Insurance Company had already paid the claim for the burnt vehicle in accordance with the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the said vehicle, the appellant/complainant was liable to be compensated by the opposite parties; manufacturer and dealer of the vehicle, for the alleged defect in the vehicle, as a result of which it caught fire. 2. It was alleged in the Consumer Complaint No. 26/2014 that the complainant purchased a Honda City Car from the opposite party no. 2, Dealer, manufactured by the opposite party no. 1, Company and its registration no. was GJ 1KB 4938. On 14.08.2013, when the complainant was returning to his house from his place of work, he noticed smoke emitting from the bonnet of the car at about 8.30 pm. He moved the car to one side, but the car started catching fire. The central locking system of the car also got jammed and hence, he could not retrieve the valuables from the car. The complainant informed the concerned police station and the fire brigade, which extinguished the fire. On 23.08.2013, the complainant was advised by the opposite parties to approach the Insurance Company to claim damages. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking compensation of Rs. 39,53,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint as well as Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation. The said complaint having been dismissed on 26.11.2014, vide impugned order, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present First Appeal. 3. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant confirmed that the complainant had already received the claim from the Insurance Company in accordance with the IDV of the vehicle. However, he wanted compensation from the opposite parties, because the car had caught fire and it had led to huge damage to him. 4. I have carefully examined the material on record and gone through the impugned order of the State Commission. The State Commission observed in their order that the car had been purchased four years before the incident of fire and during this time, there was no complaint of any manufacturing defect in the car. The State Commission also observed that merely because the car caught fire, it cannot be stated that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the same would have shown within a short period from the date of purchase of the vehicle. I do not find any solid reason to disagree with the findings of the State Commission. There is no evidence on record from which it could be established that the car suffered from defect of any kind. Moreover, the compensation has already been provided to the complainant by the Insurance Company in accordance with the IDV of the vehicle. I, therefore, do not find any justification for seeking any additional compensation of any kind from the opposite parties on the part of the complainant. This appeal is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine and the order, passed by the State Commission is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. |
