Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/62/2017

Parbhat Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Goyal

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/62/2017
Date of Institution	:	23/01/2017
Date of Decision	:	17/09/2019

 

Parbhat Jindal aged about 57 years son of Sh. Des Raj, resident of B-1, 845, Seat No.5, Ram Nagar, Ward No.4, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Joshi Automobiles Private Limited, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh (Authorised Dealer of Honda car), through its Authorised Signatory.

2.     Honda Car India Limited, SPL-1, Tapukara Industrial Area, Khushkhera, Alwar (Rajasthan), through its Managing Director.

3.     National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office : Flat No.101-106, 1^st Floor, N-1, BMC House, Canaught Palace, New Delhi, through its Divisional Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel OP-1, as Vice Counsel for Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP-3
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are,  on 20.4.2016, the complainant purchased a Honda City 1.5 i-DTEC car from OP-1 for Rs.11,13,941/-. The car carried one year warranty/guarantee if any defect occurred on account of poor workmanship and manufacturing defect and it was undertaken to replace the same.  The car was insured through OP-1 from OP-3 having IDV of Rs.10,58,244/- and premium of Rs.36,497/- was paid.  Maintained, on 30.5.2016, the complainant alongwith his friends S/Shri Vinod Kumar and Piara Lal Sharma had gone to Jaipur in the said car.  At about 7:00 p.m. when they reached Jaipur some water had logged on the road due to rain and when they were crossing the road leading to their hotel, suddenly a bus came from the opposite side and crossed the car of the complainant. After crossing the bus, when the car went about 500 meters ahead, meter of the car showed indication. On checking nothing was found, but the indication started blinking continuously. The car was got checked and by that time it had covered distance of 5000 KMs. Maintained, estimated cost of repair was quoted at Rs.1,25,000/-. It was told, water was logged in the engine of the car.  The car was taken to OP-1 after spending Rs.25,000/- as towing charges and it was diagnosed as a case of hydro-stating lock.  The bill was raised of Rs.39,904/- which was paid and on being submitted to OP-3/insurance company, it was not acceded to.  Hence, the complainant prayed for the release of the amount of Rs.39,904/- alongwith interest; Rs.25,000/- as towing charges; Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deprecating the value of the car; Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony etc. and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable.  According to it, damage was known as hydrostatic lock and the engine of the complainant’s vehicle was severely damaged due to water getting into the engine as it passed through the water logged area.  As such, it was corrected on receipt of the payment of the amount. The complainant himself was responsible for the damage and it was not a manufacturing defect.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 despite of service did not contest the consumer complaint and vide order dated 22.3.2017 was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.         OP-3/insurer contested the consumer complaint and filed its separate written reply.  Its case is, water has engrossed into the engine and no accidental external impact was observed.  Maintained, engine cannot be damaged to such an extent by merely coming into contact with the water only.  The vehicle has run or tried to start after ingress of water which is clearly mechanical failure resulted from aggravation of loss which was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence, the claim was not processed and disbursed to the complainant.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.         No rejoinder was filed by the complainant despite grant of opportunities for the said purpose.
6.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.         We have heard the learned counsel for OPs 1 & 3 and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.         Per pleadings of the complainant, it is his admitted case, car has crossed through a water logged area as a result of which it had developed defect.  In the pleadings of the consumer complaint, depth of the water logged area was not mentioned so as to ascertain with minor rain, water had engrossed into the engine which had resulted into damage. 
9.         The complainant before institution or during the pendency of the consumer complaint had not pleaded, with a light rain, water had entered the engine and caused the damage so as to hold, it was a manufacturing defect of the car which was expected to bear rainy water to some extent in order to pass on the liability to the insurance company for the reimbursement of the repair charges.  Neither there is any pleading as referred in the foregoing paragraph nor any expert evidence in this regard has seen the light of the day.
10.         The complainant had moved an application for production of surveyor report which was opposed and in the application as well as in the arguments, it was not contended how the report of the surveyor is material and just for the proper adjudication of the dispute.  The surveyor is a person who had assessed the damage and he was not in any way an expert in the engineering side of vehicle to say there was any mechanical defect in it.  He could have only assessed and ascertained the damage caused to the car. 
11.         The OPs in their written statements and affidavits furnished had claimed, complainant should thank himself for the damage caused as the car was driven in a water logged area to a greater extent so as to touch the engine and make flow of water into the engine. To this effect, affidavits were furnished as well as in the contents of the reply said plea was set forth.  However, despite of availing as many as four opportunities, the complainant neither filed the rejoinder nor furnished the affidavits in rebuttal to say there was no weight in the contention raised in the replies put forth by OPs. 
12.         It is the case of the complainant, he got the car towed from Jaipur to Chandigarh and had spent an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant in the documents annexed had not enclosed the receipt obtained from the person who had towed the car to Chandigarh from Jaipur so as to say after development of defect, the complainant did not drive the car and non-production of such receipt leads to the inference when the problem was minor, the car was driven continuously from Jaipur to Chandigarh and covered a long distance as a result thereof damage was aggravated. The said claim was not covered in the terms and conditions of the policy
13.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  The consumer complaint being meritless is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
17/09/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President