Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/150/2021

Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj Kohli adv

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	150 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	03.03.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	20.07.2022

 

 

 

 

Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Sh.Lalit Prashad Sharma, resident of H.No.1630, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Hyundai Motors India Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer Mr. Bo Shin Seo, having Registered Office and Factory Kanchipuram, Irrugattukottai, NH No. 4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram, District Tamil Nadu-602117.  

2]  Hyundai Motors India Ltd. through its authorized signatory/Area Sales manager Mr. Abhinav Narula, having Regional Office-I, DLF Building, Tower-B, 3rd Floor, RGCT Park, Chandigarh 160101

3]  Berkeley Hyundai (Berk Auto LLP) through its Authorized Signatory/MD/CEO/Chairman Mr. Ranjeev Dahuja,  Plot No. 375, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula.

4]  Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer/ Chairman Mr. G.N. Bajpai, servicing office address of the insurer SCO 4, 5, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160009.

     ….. Opposite Parties 

BEFORE:  SH.S.K.SARDANA        PRESIDING MEMBER

                                SH.B.M.SHARMA            MEMBER                         

 

 

For Complainant :  Sh.Anuj Kohli, Advocate

For OP(s)       :  Sh.A.P.S. Kahlon, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Adv. for OP No.3.

                   Sh.Ritesh Kumar, Adv. for OP No.4.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased brand new Hyundai Creta Car bearing Chassis No.MALC181CLJM519044 and Engine No.G4FGJU555876 on 11.1.2019 from OP No.3, manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2, and got the same registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-BV-1949 with the Registering & Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh.  The said vehicle was also got insured from Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited at the suggestion & asking of OP No.2 itself vide Policy No.HFE30545 dated 11.01.2019 valid till 10.01.2020 (Ann. C-2 & C-3). It is stated that soon after the purchase of the vehicle, when it had done only 3139 Kms on 04.08.2019, the vehicle suddenly stopped when the complainant was driving it and was near to Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. The complainant called the Hyundai Roadside Assistance and lodged a complaint, consequent to which the vehicle was towed away to M/s Joshi Hyundai Mohali (Ann.C-4) being the alleged nearest Service Station. Thereafter, on 6th August 2019 M/s Joshi Hyundai called the complainant and informed him that the problem had occurred due to ‘Fuse Short’ and the same having been replaced and rectified the vehicle was absolutely okay and had no issues. It is submitted that no job-card or invoice was generated as the OPs stated that the fuse short had been set right and there is nothing else to be done so there is no requirement of any job card or Invoice.  It is pleaded that thereafter again on 4.9.2019, the vehicle again stopped on road while being driven and again had to be towed away to the Service Station and this time it was taken to M/s Berkeley Hyundai, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Panchkula and at that time the vehicle had done only 3281 Kms.  It is also pleaded that from 5.9.2019 to 8.9.2019, the said Service Station could not detect the problem in the vehicle and finally on 9.9.2019 Mr. Ajay from the said Service Station informed the complainant that the ‘Silencer’ of the car had choked. It is submitted then on 10.9.2019, the complainant personally visited M/s Berkeley Hyundai to know the reason behind choking of the silencer but didn't get any satisfactory answer, but was informed that it happens with few vehicles on account of some manufacturing defect, so, on the recommendations of the agency, complainant agreed to get the silencer replaced with a new one. It is also submitted that after the replacement of the silencer the vehicle was finally delivered to the complainant on 16.9.2019 (Ann.C-5).

 

                It is stated that when the complainant drove the vehicle to his home, he noticed some abnormal sound from the engine and as such visited M/s Berkeley Hyundai again for rectification of the same. Accordingly, on the same day, the complainant also called Mr. Ajay from M/s Berkeley Hyundai regarding the abnormal sound problem noticed.  It is also stated that the Official of OP asked few questions from the complainant as to from where the complainant got the petrol filled, which was replied to be from Chandigarh Sector 4 Petrol Pump near Kendariya Sadan, and whether the car was ever stuck in water, to which the complainant answered that no such incident ever happened and also reminded them that the car had been in their custody for the last 10 days.  It is averred that the complainant insisted about the existence of the said problem and refused to take the car back in the said condition as it clearly had defects, then the mechanic of OP namely Mr.Mehar inspected the car and informed the complainant that there was some issue in the engine of the complainant’s car and advised the complainant to leave the car in the workshop for thorough check up and told that they would update the complainant on the next day.  It is pleaded that on 20.9.2019, the complainant was informed that they have noticed problem in the engine of the car and they would need to open the engine of car to rectify the problem.  Thereafter, Mr. Anil Bishnoi, Area Manager, Chandigarh, informed the complainant that he had personally inspected the car and found the car engine connecting rod bend, due to Hydrostatic lock and on being asked, how it occurred, he told that it happened as some water droplets came in engine while running engine conduction (few water droplets came in engine cylinder) and being an external factor, we can only repair the engine on payment basis because it is not covered under the insurance or warranty and they in any case cannot replace the car or the engine.  It is pleaded that the complainant was shocked to hear this as despite so many visits, no one had informed him about any such thing till now and the Area Manager was the first person to ever mention any such thing in respect of the defect of the vehicle. It is submitted that due to the defects in the vehicle, the vehicle remained with the Service Station for quite some time since its purchase as they replaced the silencer then it was with them due to abnormal sound in the engine but there was no reference to any water drops in the engine ever and now an all together different version and problem were indicated to the complainant by the Area Manager of Hyundai, which shows that the opposite parties were acting in connivance with each other to cover up their wrongs and confuse the issue.   Then, the complainant was asked to give consent to open the engine, however, the vehicle of the complainant was new and had done less than 3500 Kms. and had to visit the Service Station so many times and for so many days, indicating the existence of an inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is asserted that the complainant raised the issue with the opposite parties and requested them to replace the vehicle with a new one but they did not agree and kept on asking for consent to open the engine. Further it is submitted that on 04.10.19 the Customer Care Manager of OPs communicated to the complainant through mail that the engine components need replacement, as such they have decided to replace the part engine assembly and requested for consent, which was duly replied with demand of the job card as well as for not allowing to open the full engine assembly (Ann. C-6 colly).  However, left with no other option, the complainant gave consent for the same and it was found that there was fault in the engine assembly, hence, the half engine assembly of the vehicle had to be replaced but the opposite parties even then did not agree to the genuine request of the complainant for the replacement of the vehicle due to the inherent manufacturing defect existing in the vehicle which led to so much harassment to the complainant.    

 

         It is submitted that the ordeal of the complainant did not end here as after the replacement of the half engine assembly of the vehicle he was required to get the documents for getting the vehicle registered with the new engine number and chassis number and also to get the vehicle insured and despite requests even the said documents were delayed and handed over belatedly to the complainant which delayed the process further for the complainant rather initially the Opposite parties insisted that they would imprint the old engine number on the replaced portion of engine assembly as well because they had been doing so in case of other customers as well but when the complainant raised questions about the process involved in the same and the legality of the same, they kept mum and thereafter provided the documents after much persuasion. It is also submitted the ID sticker for the replaced engine has not been provided till date despite repeated requests of the complainant for the same for the reasons best known to the opposite parties despite passing of more than an year (Ann.C-7). It is asserted that the complainant had informed the insurance company about the problem in the vehicle and consequent replacement of the half engine assembly and the resultant change in the engine number, chassis number etc., but they have failed to make the necessary correction and changes in the insurance till now despite having been provided with the new registration certificate of the vehicle with changed engine number etc. by the complainant.

 

         It is asserted that the complainant is being harassed and troubled and being asked to bring the vehicle to them in order to take photographs of the engine number, whereas, the staff of the agency itself is stating that the same cannot be done without dismounting the engine once again. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice by the opposite parties as the photographs if any, should have been taken by the agency at the time of change of the engine assembly as mentioned above but they acted in most callous, casual and unprofessional manner thereby putting the complainant through immense trouble and harassment. It is mentioned that it is inter-se between the opposite parties to do the needful and make necessary changes and provide rectified second party insurance with proper particulars incorporated in the same as per the new registration certificate of the vehicle. It is also mentioned that the complainant has been time and again requesting the OPs to make the necessary changes but the OPs have not cared to do anything to do redress the genuine grievance of the complainant (Ann.C-8 colly).

 

         It is stated that the complainant even suffered considerably at the time of getting the registration certificate with the new engine number after the replacement of the part engine assembly, as when he took the vehicle for passing, the Inspector at the Registering and Licensing Authority, who inspected the vehicle, insisted to provide the photographs of the engine number of the replaced engine, which due to negligence of the OP agency was not available with the complainant and the vehicle was passed for registration with great difficulty after showing all the other relevant documents. It is further stated that the complainant on account of insuring the vehicle and for the registration of the same spent a sum of Rs.1000/-approx. on account of out of pocket expenses for insurance of the vehicle and Rs.2500/- on account of the registration charges of the vehicle (Ann.C-9 & C-10). It is pleaded that the complainant for the purchase of vehicle also got financed a sum of Rs.8,96,000/- from State Bank of India & is paying interest on the installment of loan without proper & complete utilization of the vehicle. It is also pleaded that due to the deficient act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered personally as well as professionally as even the standby vehicle was not made available to the complainant by the opposite parties for the complete period to mitigate the problems being faced by the complainant due to act and conduct of the opposite parties as the vehicle remained with them for a period for about more than 2 months. It is averred that as the vehicle was having a latent inherent manufacturing defect so much so that the engine of the vehicle had to be replaced completely and the OPs failed to provide after sale service properly rather there is a clear deficiency on the part of the OPs and they have indulged into unfair trade practices which is apparent and writ large on the face of the record. Hence, this complaint.

 

2]       The OP No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that HMIL (Hyundai Motor India Ltd.) operates with all its dealers including OP No.3 on Principal-to-Principal basis and not on ‘Principal to Agent’ basis, so the error/omission, if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.  It is stated that no money from the sale consideration of the vehicle or for any other services was paid to HMIL and the amount, whatsoever, has been paid to OP No.3 dealer.  It is submitted that concern of the complainant with regard to Engine Assy. was replaced well before the filing of the present complaint to his satisfaction. It is also submitted that complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 11.1.2019 and had driven it for more than 3100 KM’s till 4.8.2019 and during these 7 months, no concern regarding its performance was reported.  It is also submitted that had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have covered such an extensive mileage. It is stated that the complainant reported the vehicle on 5.9.2019 @ 3281 KM’s for running repair and upon inspection by the concerned dealer, water was found inside the muffler assy. due to which silencer of the vehicle had choked and the same was communicated to the complainant that the repair was not covered under warranty as damage due to negligence was not covered under warranty.  However, the Muffler Assy. was replaced free of cost by the dealer on Goodwill basis for satisfaction of the complainant.  It is also stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant had failed to prove the same by any cogent evidence of expert report. It is further stated that on 19.9.2019 the complainant reported his vehicle with regard to engine noise and on inspection by dealer, water was found in the Air Filter and after further diagnosis one cylinder crankshaft was found bend which happens only due to hydrostatic shock.  It is submitted that the damage caused due to negligence of complainant is not covered under warranty.  However, as a Goodwill gesture, the required parts were replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant, after he gave consent to further inspect the vehicle and replace the required parts. It is submitted that after the parts were changed, the complainant was also handed over a letter by OP No.3 stating that the Engine Assy. has been changed and details of old and new engine numbers were also given (Ann.OP-1-2/8). It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 be dismissed.

 

3]       The Opposite Party No.3/Berkley Hyundai has also filed reply and while admitting the repair of the car in question, stated that the engine of the car in question was replaced at the Service Centre of OP No.3 and no payment had been obtained by it while changing the engine as is reflected in invoice summary dated 21.11.2019.  It is stated that OP No.3 is not the manufacturer of the Car in question; rather it is sale & service agency. It is also stated that OP No.3 is not liable to compensate the complainant.  It is submitted that OP No.3 has not repaired or serviced the car in question during the period of 4.8.2019 and 6.8.2019.  It is pleaded that the complainant had visited OP NO.3 for the problem of some sound in engine, so some questions regarding the filling of the petrol or driving the vehicle in water log area were asked, but the complainant did not answer properly and as such, to get the problem detected, consent from complainant was taken to open the engine and detect the problem.  Thereafter, the engine was opened with the consent of the complainant and then necessary replacements of parts were done.  Denying other allegations being not related to, the OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.

         

 

 

4]       The OP NO.4/Future General India Insurance Company has filed reply stating that there is no deficiency of service on its part.  The OP No.4 while admitting the issuance of insurance policy of the vehicle in question, stated that insurance of the said vehicle is valid from 11.1.2019 to 10.1.2020 for Own Damaged Coverage and from 11.1.2019 to 10.1.2022 for Third Party Coverage (An. OP-1). It is stated that the answering OP did not receive any communication from any of the parties about defect in the insured vehicle. It is also stated that answering OP never received any claim or any written intimation in any mode till date.  It is submitted that the complainant only approached to the answering OP for updating engine number via email dated 21.12.2020, which needs to be  updated in the policy as well as system of answering OP for future references.  It is also submitted that answering OP requested Op No.3 a number of time for updating the rectified/new engine number of the vehicle in question on its web portal and left with no alternative, the answering OP on its own updated the rectified engine number of the insured vehicle in question in its system by making necessary changes and issued endorsement to the complainant with updated engine number in Nov., 2021. It is pleaded that answering OP has business tie up with OPs No.1 & 2 for cashless insurance facilities through third party brokers which is Aditya Birla Broker in the instant policy and as the policy was channelized through third party brokers to answering OP, hence answering OP has no role in advertising or soliciting the instant policy to the complainant.  Denying rest of the allegations, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissed of the complaint qua it. 

5]       Separate rejoinders have also been filed by the complainant to the respective written replies of OPs No.1 & 2, 3 and 4.

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

7]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the Parties and gone through entire documents & evidence on record including written arguments.

8]       OPs No.1 & 2 defended the cause on the ground that the Complainant has failed to prove his claim of manufacturing defect by cogent & credible evidence supported by the opinion of expert report from any appropriate laboratory. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon “Vikram Bajaj Vs. Hind Motors (India) Ltd. & Anr.”, 2009 (II) CLT 670; “Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.”, 2010 (1) CPJ 235. However, to our mind, the precedents cited by the OPs No.1 & 2 are inapplicable and clearly distinguishable to the facts & circumstances of the present case, in as much, where the facts speak for themselves there is no need for any expert opinion. Nonetheless, per Ex.OP 1-2/8 annexed by OPs No.1 & 2 along with their written version, they themselves have admitted that on being diagnosed problem with the engine assembly of the vehicle, the same was changed with new one in terms of warranty policy. Thus, in view of the clear cut admission ibid on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2, which are further established through the averments in the Complaint and substantiated by way of documents attached therewith, the plea taken by the OPs No.1 & 2 does not hold water and is hereby rejected.

 

9]       The next plea taken by the OPs No.1 & 2 is that HMIL operates with all its dealers including OP No.3 on “principal-to-principal” basis and that error/ omission/misrepresentation etc. if any at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer only and OPs No.1 & 2 cannot be held liable for the same. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon “Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr.”, 1994(1) CPC 477, “Vijay Traders Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.”, JT 1995 (7) SC 608 and “Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. K.B. Murleedharan & Others”, 1994 (2) CPC 80. However, the precedents cited by the OPs No.1 & 2 in support of their claim are not applicable and clearly distinguishable to the facts & circumstances of the present case, in as much as, the subject defect is proved to be in the knowledge of the OPs No.1 & 2 qua which a certificate Ex.OP 1-2/8 has also been placed on record which itself goes a long way to prove that after finding problem in the engine assembly, the same was replaced with new one as per HMIL warranty policy. Meaning thereby, the manufacturer (OPs No.1 & 2) are aware about the condition of the subject vehicle. Here we are fortified by the judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 10220 of 2020 titled as “Tata Motors Limited Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Anr.”, decided on 18.02.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme has clearly held that unless the manufacturer's knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable, given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, were on principal-to-principal basis". Thus, the plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief against them is hollow and deserve no merit. 

 

10]      Admittedly, the complainant purchased a brand new Hyundai Creta Car bearing Chassis No.MALC181CLJM519044 and Engine No.G4FGJU555876 from OP No.3, manufactured by OPs No.1 & 2, on 11.1.2019 by paying Rs.9,06,774/-.  It is borne on record that the problem in the engine of the car in question occurred just within 8th month of its purchase that too when it had covered only 3281 Kms. 

 

11]      It is a proven fact that when the engine of the car in question was giving abnormal sound, the complainant took it to OP No.3, an authorized dealer of OP No.1 & 2 (Manufacturer), who after detailed inspection & thorough check, suggested replacement of engine assembly of the car in question, which though was not accepted to complainant, but he agreed later on and then the engine assembly of the vehicle in question was replaced by the OP NO.3 per instruction of OPs No.1 & 2 (manufacturer). It is also established that the original engine number of the car, has been changed as a result of replacement of engine assembly of the car in question and the complainant has to bear the expenses of correction in the Registration Document for incorporating new engine number of the car, apart from approaching OP NO.4 Insurance Company to make necessary correction, which too was done much later. Admittedly, a certificate has also been issued in favour of the complainant mentioning the replacement of Old Engine No.G4FGJU555876 of the car in question with New Engine No.G4FG*KUR54898*.     

 

12]      The plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 that the problem in the engine of the car occurred as water was found in the Air Filter and on further diagnosis one cylinder crankshaft was found bend which happens only due to hydrostatic shock, which occurred due to negligence of complainant. Also, had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have covered such an extensive mileage. It is also pleaded by OPs No.1 & 2 that the complainant reported the vehicle on 5.9.2019 @ 3281 KM’s and that had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have covered such an extensive mileage.

 

13]      The above plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 is totally bereft of any merit and contrary in itself.  The OPs No.1 & 2 did not place on record any authentic documentary evidence to prove such assertions, especially when they were in better position to do so as the vehicle remained with them.   The plea taken up by the OPs No.1 & 2 is totally an afterthought, taken in order to defend themselves.  Another plea of the OPs No.1 & 2 that had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have covered such an extensive mileage i.e. 3281, is completely erroneous & vague.  The OPs claim about use of vehicle in question as ‘extensive’ on covering a mileage of 3281 only that too during a period of about 8/9 months, which come to 13/15 kilometers a day, is surprising and speak volumes about the defect in the vehicle.   

 

14]      It is also obvious that when the engine of the car in question has been changed, the complainant has to get the new engine number of the vehicle incorporated in Registration Certification from the concerned authorities as well as from OP Insurance Company in the policy document and for that he certainly has to spent amount as well as to visit them and communicate, for no fault on his part, but only because of supply of defective vehicle by the OPs, even after spending huge amount.   

 

15]      Indisputably, the engine is the heart of a car and having a great engine is essential for making a good car. The change of engine of the newly purchased vehicle in question within a short span of 8 months, itself proves manufacturing defect in the vehicle and supply of defective vehicle to the complainant. The complainant has spent handsome amount to buy the Car in question for his & his family members happiness and also believing the popular brand name of this Car – Hyundai Motors India Ltd., which boasts of having high quality vehicles in market and as such the question of the subject vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect does not arise at all.  In this view of the matter, the engine of the brand new Car in question becoming defective just after completing only 3281 KMs distance, is totally contrary to the reputation of the OP Car Company and their claims about its unmatched quality and performance. The replacement of engine of the car, as done by the OP Company, certainly amounts to major repair and if a customer has to undertake such major repair after driving the vehicle only 3281 KMs, then it is not less than a shock and the joy of owning a brand car is totally destroyed. Needless to mention here that due to the act & conduct of the opposite parties there has been a clear depreciation in the value of the asset i.e. the vehicle in question as the vehicle now has history of repairs and replacement as per the own record of the opposite parties, which definitely reflects badly on the value of the vehicle. We find the subject defect to be such nature that it warrants the Complainant to be suitably & adequately compensated by the opposite parties for the same, as the entire situation has cropped up owning to their supplying a vehicle having admittedly inherent defect, rendering deficient after sales service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

16]      Further the attempt of OPs saying that it was because of carelessness & negligent driving of the complainant because of which engine became defective, is like adding insult to injury and amounts to shunning away from the responsibility with regard to the product that is helping this company making huge profits, which has enabled it to expand worldwide. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs No.1 to 3 is clearly established.

 

17]      We are also guided by the judgment of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in case titled as “Hyundai Motors India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jitender Kumar & Anr.”, Appeal No.152 of 2017, decided on 15.12.2017, having identical issue as in the present cased.  

18]      The Complainant has also alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 for not providing amended insurance cover with correct particulars after the replacement of engine assembly. Record transpired, OP No.4 got the information in December 2020 and the requisite changes were carried out in November, 2021, meaning thereby OP No.4 took nearly one year in carrying out the changes which should have been carried out immediately in maximum 2 to 3 days. This fact has also not been refuted by the OP No.4 in its pleadings throughout. Thus, the precise grievance of the Complainant qua OP No.4 in not effecting the necessary changes promptly in the insurance documents after the replacement of the engine assembly of the vehicle is proved on record. Had, OP No.4 been vigilant in effecting the requisite changes in the insurance documents promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension. So on account of delay in effecting changes which led to inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to the complainant, to our mind, Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation to be paid by OP No.4.

19]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs No.1 to 4 has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against them.  The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation for causing him immense harassment, mental agony and depreciating value of brand new vehicle on account of change of its engine, apart from payment of Rs.33,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.50,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

         The Opposite Party No.4 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for delay in effecting necessary changes in the insurance documents after the replacement of the engine assembly of vehicle, which led to inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to the complainant.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.4, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

20]      The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

21]     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                             

20^th July, 2022                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                      (S. K. SARDANA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(B. M. SHARMA)

MEMBER