Delhi

West Delhi

CC/11/230

Smt Ritu Sarin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Honda Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

          CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

  Date of institution: 26.04.2011  

Complaint Case No.230/11                                                           Date of order: 14.02.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Smt Ritu Sarin, R/o. D-503, Sadbhavana Apartment, Plot No.8, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi           

                                                                                                          Complainant

VERSUS

Honda Motors Ltd., M/s. BAS Engg. Pvt. Ltd., The General Manager, Honda City Showroom, A-2, Udyog Nagar Indl. Area, Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi, Delhi.                                                                                                Opposite party No.1

 

The Manager, Motor Claim Hub, The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Plot No.60, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, Opp. SBI, New Delhi-110020.                                                                                                            Opposite party No.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

The present complaint is brought by Ms. Ritu Sarin hereinafter referred as the complaint under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to Honda Motors Ltd and another hereinafter referred as the opposite parties to pay Rs.71,000/- paid by her to opposite party no.1 as charges of repair of her car and Rs.85,000/- spent by her on hiring of private taxis, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony suffered by her and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

          The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that she is owner of a car bearing registration no.DL4C NCO389, chasis no.MAKGD 852E6N349093 and engine no.L15A 30086040 make Honda City ZX. The car is insured with the opposite party no.1 vide insurance policy no.109000581400 from 28.09.2009 to 27.09.2010. The insurance policy includes all risks and damages which may occur by accident.

 

          That the complainant on 29.07.2010 at about 12.00 noon had gone to Inderprastha International School for bringing her daughter. The car was stolen from there. The complainant lodged FIR no.220/2010 at Police Station Sector-23, Dwarka. On 12.08.10 the car was found at an isolated place near Narela Border on road side in an accidental condition.

 

          That the complainant took the car on superdari from court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1 Dwarka on 16.08.10. The complainant on 18.08.10 delivered the car to opposite party no.1 for repairs. Who gave estimated cost of spare parts and repairs of Rs.80,000 and delivery date of the vehicle in 15 to 20 days. The complainant  informed the opposite party no.2 of recovery of the car and delivery  of the same to opposite party no.1 for repairs. Therefore their surveyor inspected the car.

 

          That the complainant’s husband after 20 days visited the opposite party no.1 to take delivery of the car. They told that the car will be repaired within 10 to 15 days. The complainant’s husband  again visited the opposite party no.1 to receive the car but the car was not repaired and informed him that he is to pay Rs.1,45,000/- instead of Rs.80,000/- for repairs of the car. On 01.01.11 the complainant wrote a letter to General Manager of the opposite party no.1 describing his difficulty but to no effect. He paid Rs.1,42,815/- to the opposite party no.1 for repair of the car and received the same on 05.01.11 . He wrote to the opposite party no.2 about the facts and circumstances and requested them to pay the repair charges as reimbursement. But the opposite party no.2 also did not pay any heed to request of the complainant, therefore, the complainant on 17.01.11 sent a legal notice to the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.1,42,810/- repair charges of the car and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment. The complainant on 05.02.11 also sent a legal notice to opposite party no.1 requesting to remit sum of Rs.62,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for wrongful losses for keeping the car for unreasonable period  of 5 months.

          That the opposite party no.2 has reimbursed sum of Rs.71,000/- only till filing  of the complaint. The complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially for non-reimbursement of repairs charges by opposite party no.2 and taking unreasonable time of 5 months by opposite party no.1 in repairing the car. The complainant had to hire taxi for her day to day affairs and had to spent huge amount. The complainant several times asked the opposite parties to reimburse the remaining repair charges and pay compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses. But to no effect hence the present complaint.

 

          After notice the opposite party no.1 filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is without any cause of action, false and frivolous and has been filed just to harm and harass the opposite party no.1 to extract money and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

          However, on merits, it is admitted that car was delivered at the workshop of opposite party no.1 in  accidental condition for repair on 18.08.10. They told the complainant that repair of the vehicle depends upon  survey by the surveyor of opposite party no.2, receiving work order from opposite party no.2 and availability of spare parts. The cost and time given by the opposite party  no.1 for repair of the car was approximate and not confirmed. The opposite party no.1 informed the complainant and her husband for extension of time and cost of repair on telephone. They did not  object. The car was badly damaged. Front coil top was rusted, which was not approved by the opposite party no.2 and information was given to the complainant. The complainant gave instruction for repair of the damaged and rusted portion of the car on his own expenses. Therefore increase of time and cost was due to bad condition of the car and as consented by the complainant herself. The complainant wanted cashless  insurance reimbursement of the car in lieu of general insurance policy. The opposite party no.2 did not agree to pay the same. The opposite party no.1 charged Rs.1,42,810/- from the complainant for spare parts and repairs of the car. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of  opposite party no.1. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

The opposite party no.2 also filed written statement while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections for concealment of true and material facts, complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

          On merits the opposite party no.2 asserted that initially a case of theft of the car was registered at Police Station, Sector-23, Dwarka and later on the car was recovered. Therefore, case of theft was closed and the complainant is entitled for losses suffered and claim damages found to be sustained in the car and as per the IRADA approved surveyor report and an amount of Rs.71,700/- is paid to the complainant and as per the insurance policy she is not entitled for any other amount. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

          The complainant filed rejoinders to the replies of the opposite parties while controverting stand of the opposite parties and reiterating her own stand and again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to reimburse the repair charges and pay compensation on account of damages suffered by her and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

 

          When the complainant Ms. Ritu Sarin was asked to lead evidence in support of her claim she filed affidavit dated 07.12.12. Wherein she again narrated facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of her case also relied upon copy of insurance policy annexure-C/1, Copy of FIR no.220/2010 annexure-C/2, memo of recovery of the car annexure-C/3, copy of order dated 16.08.10 passed by the Ld. ACMM, Dwarka annexure-C/4, estimate of repairs of the car annexure-C/5, receipt with invoice dated 09.12.10 annexure-C/6, copy of letter dated 05.01.11 annexure-C/7, copy of letter dated 17.01.11 annexure-C/8 and copy of letter dated 05.02.11 annexure-C/9.

 

The opposite party no.1 in support of their case filed affidavit  of Shri J.S. Harit, Assistant Manager (Legal) dated 22.03.13 . He also narrated facts of the reply of opposite party  no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

          Whereas, right of the opposite party no.2 to file evidence was stuck off vide order dated 23.07.13.

 

          We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

 

          After having heard both the sides at length, complaint, replies, affidavits and documents placed on record, it is common case of the parties that the car no. DL4C NC0389 of the complainant was stolen on 29.07.10. The complainant lodged FIR no.220/2010 in Police Station  Sector-23, Dwarka. The car was recovered on 12.08.10. The car was taken on superdari on 16.08.10. The complainant delivered the car to opposite party no.1 on 18.08.10. They gave estimated cost of spare and repair within 20 days. The car was repaired and delivered to complainant on 05.01.11. The opposite party no.1 claimed and received Rs.1,45,000/- instead of Rs.80,000/- from complainant for repairs and spares. The complainant submitted claim of Rs.1,42,815/- with the opposite party no.2. They paid a sum of Rs.71,000/- only.

 

          The claim of the complainant is that the opposite party no.1 took unreasonable time of about 5 months in repair of the car. The complainant had to hire car for her day to day affairs. She spent huge amount on hiring the car. 5e also suffered mentally and physically. She had taken cash less facility of insurance from the opposite party no.2. But the opposite party no.2 reimbursed a sum of Rs.71,000/- only despite the fact the opposite party no.1 took Rs.1,42.000/- from complainant for repair of the car. She is also entitled for reimbursement of remaining sum of Rs.71,000/-.

 

          There is no dispute that the opposite party no.1 took about 5 months in repair of the car. The period of 5 months taken by the opposite party no.1 in repairing the car is unreasonable. The complainant has suffered mentally and physically. She had to spent on hiring car for her day to day affairs. So she had also suffered financially. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 in repairing the car  in a long and unreasonable period of 5 months.

          Except affidavit of the complainant, which is rebutted by affidavit of Shri J.S. Harit, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the opposite party no.1, there is nothing on record to show that complainant had taken cash less insurance policy. The complainant has produced on record insurance cover note of the car. She has failed to produce terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, in absence of terms and conditions of the insurance, it cannot be said that complainant has taken cashless insurance policy. Whereas from the insurance cover note it reveals that, she has taken General Insurance Policy. The opposite party no.2 as per the General Insurance Policy has reimbursed a sum of Rs.71,000/- out of Rs.1,42,000/- spent by the complainant on repair of the car. The complainant has failed to show that she is entitled for reimbursement of the entire amount of Rs.1,42,000/- spent by her on repair of the car. Therefore, the complainant has failed to show that there is any unfair trade practice  or deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party no.2.

In view of the above observations and findings the opposite party no.1 has taken unreasonable and long  period of 5 months in repair of the car. The complainant suffered mentally, physically and financially. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 and we direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as well as litigations expanses with interest @6% from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization of the amount.

          Order pronounced on :          

• Compliance of the order be made within 30 days after receipt of the order.
• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET  LAMBA)                  (URMILA GUPTA)                                (R.S.  BAGRI)

       MEMBER                          MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT