ORDER

22.11.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 23.02.2010, the complainant purchased a Maruti /Omni 8 seater (Registration No. DL 8CP 5759) for consideration of Rs.2,04,281/- from the OP2 through OP1 his authorized dealer. It is stated that on 23.02.2010, the complainant purchased an insurance cover policy no.7104560 for consideration of Rs.7217/-, from OP3 through OP1 his authorized agent. It is further stated that on 23.02.2010, the OP1 gave delivery of vehicle and insurance policy cover to the complainant.
2. It is stated that OPs have received the premiums for the insurance cover to under take all accidental dents and paints of the vehicle free of charge under the cash less policy of insurance cover and they always undertook  only part accidental dents and paints work of the vehicle with asking to attend the remaining accidental dents and paints works only on next time for their wrongful gains of Rs.500/- each time of attending the accidental dents and paints works  of the vehicle. It is stated that OPs have been demanding Rs.25,665/- towards accidental dents and paints of the vehicle during the validity period of the insurance cover. It is further stated that the OPs have been demanding Rs.1224/- and coupon of Rs.500/- for 3^rd service of the vehicle without undertaking 3^rd service of the vehicle.
3. It is stated that OPs have been withholding the vehicle of the complainant without due excuse since 31.12.2010. It is further stated that OPs did not provide the towing facility to the complainant in case of breakdown of vehicle on road. It is further stated that OP issued wrong and false demand notice for the payment of cost of the vehicle when vehicle was hypothetic under Hire Purchase with HDFC Bank Limited through the OPs themselves and did not withdraw their demand notice till date. It is stated that on 26.02.2010, just after only two days of purchase and running of only 110 kms, the vehicle breakdown while running on road which is sufficient to prove that no PDI of vehicle was conducted and OP gave false and wrong certificate that PDI DONE.
4. It is stated that complainant called the OP1 for help but OP1 did not turn up and only sent a message that your dealer has been changed to DD Motors (P) and contact no. is 9818599990. It is further stated that after receiving message from OP1, the complainant contacted DD Motors for help who sent an engineer on spot and the engineer after inspected the vehicle reported that the clutch system of the vehicle has not been working. It is stated that refer to workshop and advised to the complainant to tow the vehicle to workshop at DD Motors by crane with giving an assurance for the reimbursement of bill of crane expenses from the workshop manager and under advice of said engineer, the complainant called the crane and towed the vehicle to workshop of DD Motors, Peeragarhi.
5. It is stated that at DD Motors, Peeragarhi one of the service advisers without bearing his name plate met to the complainant and asked the source of purchase of vehicle. It is further stated that the complainant told him that the vehicle was purchased from M/s Krish Automobiles then he told that the complainant would be charged for repairing. It is stated that the complainant raised his protest for repairing charges as his vehicle was purchased only just two days before of incident of breakdown of vehicle and on raising heavy protest by the complainant, one another service adviser of M/s DD Motors named Shri Dayanand appeared on the spot and took the vehicle into possession for repairing with giving nil estimate for parts and labour and asked to take delivery of vehicle in good running condition on next day. It is stated that on next day on 27.02.2010, the complainant met with heavy shocks and also suffered wrongful losses to his mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation when he was asked by M/s DD Motors to pay Rs.2907.46P. for parts and Rs.1047.85P. for labour charges and the complainant refused to take delivery of vehicle on payment of repairing charges.
6. It is stated that on 27.02.2010 at 12:25 A.M., complainant posted on the website of the OP no. his name, email address, address, contact number, details of vehicle, dealers name and address, date of purchase of vehicle, total kilometer covered for an enquiry. It is stated that on 27.02.2010 at 01:42 P.M. and 02:04 P.M., OP2 informed the complainant that grievance has forwarded to the concerned department who will get back to the complainant at the earliest. It is stated that on 08.02.2010 at 06:25 P.M., complainant again lodged his complain with OP2 that he heard nothing from any of his relevant departments and that the complainant has been suffering wrongful losses to his mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation as his vehicle has lying with M/s DD Motors since 26.02.2010.
7. It is stated that on 01.03.2010 at 05:30 P.M., OP2 pleaded regret the inconvenience caused to the complainant and immediately forwarded complainant’s issue (Case No.2870857385) to the concerned department with assuring complainant that he would hear from them soon. It is further stated that on 02.03.2010 at 02:47 P.M., complainant again lodged his grievance with the OP2. It is further stated that on 04.03.2010 at 05:41 P.M., the OP2 informed to the complainant that he had already forwarded issue to the concerned department with complaint reference no.2870857385. It is further stated that on 05.03.2010 at 01:15 PM, on advice of M/s DD Motors, complainant submitted that he had been informed by Manager workshop that clutch set was checked and rejected by Maruti Suzuki Ltd. for warranty. It is further stated that since the vehicle is a new brand vehicle. It is stated that parts of the vehicle kindly be replaced as goodwill gesture and oblige.
8. It is stated that on 06.03.2010 at 09:21 AM, M/s DD Motors informed, “Considering the age of your vehicle, your request is well accepted and the concerned parts are replaced as goodwill gesture. Therefore you are requested to take delivery of your vehicle on zero bill basis”. It is further stated that on 07.03.2010 at 02:10 PM, complainant informed to M/s DD Motors, “Thank you very much for accepting our request and allowing us to take delivery of vehicle on zero bill basis. Please be informed that we could not take delivery of vehicle being Saturday, we will take delivery of vehicle on tomorrow on Sunday”. It is further stated that on 23.03.2010, OP1 picked the vehicle for 1^st service and also denting/painting repairing work and returned the vehicle after undertook only 1^st service with part denting/painting repairing work with saying that remaining denting/painting work would be undertaken in next time as claim for complete denting/painting repairing work was not accepted by the OP3.
9. It is stated that on 23.04.2010, OP1 picked the vehicle for denting/painting repairing work and again returned the vehicle after undertook part denting/painting repairing work with saying that remaining denting/painting work would be undertaken in next time as claim for complete denting/painting repairing work was accepted by the OP3. It is stated that on 14.06.2010 complainant received a letter dated 05.06.2010 of OP1 than complainant immediately on 14.06.2010 sent a written notice through speed post stating breach of primary duty and complainant suffered wrongful loss, loss of enjoy of peaceful life and mental peace, physical comfort, money time and reputation. It is further stated that complainant demanded, no demand certificate in regard to Maruti Omni 8-S White (DL 8CP 5759) of take back the vehicle and pay Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. It is stated that OP1 has not issued no demand certificate. It is further stated that on 20.08.2010 OP1 picked the vehicle for second service and denting/painting repairing work and return the vehicle on 28.08.2010 and charged Rs.1044/- for denting/painting repairing job without undertaking the denting/painting repairing job. It is stated that complainant served a demand notice at 10:48 PM on 20.08.2010 to OP1. It is further stated that on 29.08.2010 OP1 picked up the vehicle for denting/painting repairing work with cash amount of Rs.200/- for fuel and 02.09.2010 dropped the vehicle without removing scratches  and also without placing rear side mud flaps and without payment of damages of Rs.6000/-. It is stated that complainant served a notice on 02.09.2010. It is stated that on 06.09.2010 Sh. S.P Singh Chaudhary Supreme Court of OP1 sent the reply to the notice and denied to make compliance with the terms of the notice. It is stated that in personal meeting it was agreed that complete remaining denting/painting repairing work would be undertaken by OP1 in next time.
11. It is stated that on 28.12.2010 at about 9:30 PM complainant locked and parked the vehicle outside his residence and on 29.12.2010 at about 7:30 AM father of the complainant opened the vehicle and started the vehicle for leaving the grand daughter Abha to her school but vehicle did not start even by best efforts. It is further stated that on 29.12.2010 at about 5:53 PM father of the complainant called the mechanic for repairing the vehicle who after inspecting the vehicle reported that ECM part of vehicle had been stolen. It is stated that the father of complainant immediately informed the police control room regarding theft of the part of vehicle and also informed the OPs at about 9:25 PM. It is stated that on 30.12.2010 at 13:11 OP1 advised to complainant to wait for towing arrangement of the vehicle.
12. It is stated that on 30.12.2010 at 13:38 hours, some unknown person asked the address of towing place from the complainant through his mobile no.9540688243 and after getting address, he told to the complainant that his vehicle would be towed at charge Rs.1000/-. It is further stated that complainant inquired from him if he was speaking on behalf of company and he affirmed and told that he was speaking from Mayapuri and he got number of complainant from Mr. Subhash, then complainant asked him the reasons for demanding the towing charges of van then he asked to contact again and he again contacted at 13:43 hours and asked that he would tow the van only if complainant would agree to pay him an amount of Rs.1000/- towards towing charges and also pleaded his inability to two the van without payment and complainant denied him for want of confirmation from OPs. It is stated that on 30.12.2010 at 02:26 PM, complainant reported whole incident to the OPs seeking their advice if complainant should pay unknown person Rs.1000/- towards towing charges or wait for towing arrangements of the company. It is further stated that on 31.12.2010 on telephonic advice of the OP1, complainant allowed Mr. Purushotam, Crane Driver to tow the van by crane on payment of Rs.800/-.
13. It is stated that on 01.01.2011 at 10:12 AM, complainant sent mail to OPs. It is further stated that complainant hope that van would be put into complete perfect running mode on road with good looking condition by freeing my van from all scratches etc. on top priority basis to avoid any other or further wrongful losses to my mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation”.
14. It is stated that on Sat. Jan 8, 2011 at 11.57 AM, complainant sent a mail to OPs, “Today on 08.01.2011 at 10:12 and 10:13 hours complainant have messages from M/s Krish Automobiles that your vehicle is ready for delivery and thereafter complainant sent the message please inform immediately, if left side accidental door of vehicle is repaired and also accidental scratches have been removed from the vehicle but till 10:43 hours complainant received no response then complainant contacted myself and enquired only then complainant was told that an additional expenses of Rs.14,864/- would be charged for repairing accidented door and removing scratches from the vehicle which clearly proves that message was sent me wrongly as vehicle was not ready for delivery. It is further stated that message for delivery be sent to me only after completion of accidented door and scratches and also third due service of vehicle”.
15. It is stated that on Sun. Jan 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, complainant sent a mail to OPs, “Please be informed that in telephonic talks, I was told an additional expenses of amounting Rs.14,864/- by Shri Dhaneshwar Jha from M/s Krish Automobiles Body Shop and after the mail above by me, complainant was sent following mail by Shri Dhaneshwar Jha from M/s Krish Automobiles Body Shop with stating additional expenses of Rs.21,480/- towards the repairing of accidental dents and scratches of the vehicle. “Dhaneshwar Jha, Sat. Jan. 8 2011 at 12:59 PM to
16. It is stated that on Sat. Jan 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM complainant sent mail, “Work as shown in details, Approved. It is stated that complainant may kindly be informed with the reasons of non including the whole accidented  damages of the vehicle in the claim form/survey report by the surveyor at the time of inspection of the vehicle at body shop of M/s Krish Automobiles which were clear in vision of the surveyor at the time of inspection of vehicle at body shop of M/s Krish Autobiles. It is further stated that complainant may kindly be informed with the general policy in regards to details of parts and repairing works of the vehicles which are not covered by the insurance cover”.
17. It is stated that on Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:29 PM complainant sent mail to OPs, “Sir, I am very much surprise with the actions of Shri Dhaneshwar, SA of M/S krish Automobiles Body Shop who has been taking all times different actions in regard to repairing of accidented dents and scratches of my vehicle. It is stated that earlier in telephonic talks he told complainant additional expenses of Rs.14,864/- and later on, he sent complainant mail for additional expenses of Rs.21,480/- and later on at 14:43 hours, he confirmed complainant on phone that repairing work of accidented dents and scratches on the vehicle has been started and again at 15:10 hours, he informed complainant that repairing work of accidented dents and scratches on the vehicle could not be started for want of signatures on the new job card. It is further stated that matter of high surprise that when job card was opened and also approval for work details has been given as to why he has been asking for signing of new job card for the same work of repairing accidented dents and scratches of vehicle which were in clear vision at the time of inspection of the vehicle by the surveyor.
18. It is stated that, it is for your kind information tha complainant have given information to Shri Dhaneshwar, SA of Body shop M/S Krish Automobiles, that complainant would make whole payment of bill which would be raised by M/s Krish Automobiles at the time of delivery of vehicle to me. It is stated that it is matter of unfair trade practice that the surveyor  used not to allow whole repairing of accidented dents and scratches on the vehicle with an advice to bring the vehicle after 15-20 days for repairing of remaining accidented dents and scratches on the vehicle under insurance cover saying that whole accidented work which were in his clear vision at the time of inspection of the vehicle could not be undertaken in one and same visit.
19. It is stated that surveyor kindly be directed to re-inspect the vehicle in true in true and correct manner and also submit his report in true and correct manner in regard to all clear vision of damages of vehicle to the concerned authorities at the time of inspection of vehicle, either the vision damages are covered or not covered under the insurance cover. It is stated that it is on part of sanctioning authorities to consider the report of surveyor at the time of sanctioning of claim, if the clear vision of accidented damages of vehicle at the time of inspection of vehicle are either covered or not by the insurance cover”.
20. It is stated that on Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, complainant sent mail to OPs, “This is to inform you that on 14.01.2011 11:19 hours Shri Dhaneshwar SA from M/s Krish sent me message, “Dear Sir, we got a technical problem in our lift of bodyshop your vehicle is in process of paining, we will contact your soon for the delivery and other status”. It is stated that thereafter only on 19.01.2011 19:22 hours, he sent complainant another message, “Dear Sir, Your vehicle DL8CP5759 OMNI is ready in our bodyshop. It will deliver and total bill details will be sent tomorrow”. And till date and time, complainant received no message from him and also he did not inform on what day technical problem in their lift of bodyshop was removed and also on what day complainant vehicle was sent for 3^rd free service and on what day complainant vehicle came back after 3^rd service. It is stated that this has been causing wrongful losses to my mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation. It is stated that it is requested to advice Shri Dhaneshwar SA of M/S Krish Motors to deliver complainant vehicle as far as possible with complete details of bill and oblige”.
21. It is stated that on Thu. Jan 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM, complainant sent mail to OPs, “this is to inform you that after mail to you today at 16:50 hours, at 18:00 hours, your vehicle no. DL8CP5759 is ready to deliver to you. Your due amount is Rs.40,081.00 for both (Cash+Ins). It is stated that kindly pick the vehicle soon to our body shop”. It is further stated that Shri Dhaneshwar-SA has not given information in regard to day when technical problem  in their lift of bodyshop was removed and also did not give information in regard to day when complainant vehicle was sent for 3^rd free service and also did not inform in regard to day when complainant vehicle came back to bodyshop after 3^rd service. It is further stated that complainant is unable to understand as to why he mentioned in the message that your due amount is Rs.40,081.00 for both (Cash+Ins) without giving details in regard to works covered under cashless policy of insurance cover and works not covered under the  insurance cover.
22. It is stated that please take notice that complainant is responsible and liable to m ake payments at the time of taking delivery of vehicle from the body shop of M/s Krish Automobiles only for the works which are either not covered in the insurance cover or are not covered under cashless policy of insurance cover but covered under the cash policy of insurance and that complainant is not responsible and liable to make payment for the works at the time of taking delivery of vehicle from the bodyshop of M/s Krish Automobiles which are covered under the cashless policy of the insurance cover. It is further stated that Shri Dhaneshwar SA of M/s Krish kindly be advised to send me separate details of each works in details which works are covered in the insurance cover and also under cashless policy of the insurance cove and are not covered under cashless policy of the insurance cover and also complete detailed information in regard to the day when technical problem in their lift of bodyshop was removed and also to give information to regard to day when my vehicle was sent for 3^rd free service and to inform in regard to day when complainant vehicle came back to body shop after 3^rd service which are very essential and necessary for my use before lifting the vehicle from the Bodyshop of M/s Krish Automobiles”.
23. It is stated that on Sun, Jan. 23, 2011 at 03:32 PM, complainant sent mail to OPs, “Sir this is for your kind information that on 22^nd January 2011 (Saturday) Shri Dhaneshwar SA of M/s Krish Automobiles Body Shop had denied to furnish the information as requested which is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on part of M/s Krish Automobiles. It is requested that M/s Automobiles kindly be advised to furnish all the information as requested by me”. It is further stated that on Mon. Jan 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM, OPs sent mail to the complainant, “Thank You for your e-mail. We value you as esteem Maruti family member and sincerely acknowledge the inconvenience you have been experiencing. We wish to inform you that we have already forwarded your issue to the concerned department with complaint reference no.8471314467. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and thank you for your patience. Please feel free to revert in case of any query or clarification”. It is stated that on Tue. Jan 25, 2011 at 8:55 AM complainant mailed to OPs, “Thank You for an early response”.
24. It is stated that on Tue. Jan. 25, 2011 at 3:43 PM, OPs mailed to the complainant, “Thank You for your email. We value you as a member of Maruti family and sincerely acknowledge the inconvenience you have been experiencing. At Maruti Suziki, our customers are the biggest assets for us and any discomfort felt by our customers is our top concern. We wish to inform you that we have already forwarded your query to the concerned department. We appreciate your co-operation in this matter and thank you for your patience. Please feel free to rever in case of any query or clarification”. It is further stated that on Thu. Jan.27, 2011 at 9:14 AM, OPs sent mail to the complainant, “Dear Mr. Singh, Thank you for your email. We value you as esteem Maruti family member and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. We once again wish to inform you that we have already forwarded your query to the concerned department. We appreciate your co-operation in this matter and thank you for your patience. Please feel free to revert in case of any query of clarification”.
25. It is stated that on Thu. Jan. 27, 2011 at 9:24 AM, complainant mailed to the OPs, “Sir, Please be informed that I have been suffering heavy wrongful losses to my mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation for want of my vehicle. You are requested to make immediate arrangements for delivery of my vehicle alongwith information as requested by me”. It is further stated that on Jan. 28, 2011 OP mailed to complainant whereby informed that to resolve the issue OP would make best efforts and complainant again mailed at 1:23 PM to OP that message has been received without the name of the sender and claim of Rs.14,436/-, DP Cash Rs.25,645/-, 3^rd service Rs.1224/- and coupon Rs.500/-. It is stated that another mail received from Mr. Dhaneshwar of M/s Krish Automobiles Body Shop to pick up the vehicle  than complainant informed that the works which are under the insurance cover and cashless policy.
26. It is stated that on 2 Feb. 2011 at 4PM complainant mailed to OP and again requested to arrange the immediate delivery of the vehicle. It is further stated that on 04 Feb. 2011 at 11:15 AM complainant mailed to OP and again requested to arrange the immediate delivery of the vehicle. It is stated that on 26.03.2011 at 13:12 hours complainant received a telephone from mobile no. 09747555125 and a call from pick up call no. 089606337365 is sufficient to prove that there was no third service undertaken by OP and false claimed the charges. It is stated that on 04.05.2011 complainant served a final notice to OP to deliver is vehicle with complete information in regard to works which are under insurance cover and works which are under insurance cover with cash policy and also under insurance cover with cashless policy. It is stated that information was also asked from OP in regard to the day when his lift problem was removed and when the vehicle was sent for 3^rd service from the bodyshop and came back.
27. Complainant is seeking direction against OP to undertake the accidental dents and paint work of the vehicle free of charge under the cashless policy, to provide the ECM part of vehicle which was removed by theft, to withdraw the demand notice for payment of vehicle, to pay damages for wrongful losses caused to complainants mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation at the rate of Rs.1000/- for each and every day since 23.12.2010 till date 06.03.2010when clutch plate was replaced as a good gesture, to pay damages for wrongful loss caused to mental peace, physical comfort, money, time and reputation @ Rs. 1000/- for each and every day since 14.06.2010 when false and wrong notice of demand was sent and to pay damages @ Rs.1000/- for each and every day since 08.01.2011 when falsely OP gave  message that vehicle is ready for delivery till redate actual delivery of vehicle was done.
28. OP1 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint and same is filed on the basis of false, baseless allegations, fabricated and on forged documents, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed as per section 2 (1) (e) and section 14 (1)(a) to (i) of the C. P Act. It is further stated that complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties as respondent no.2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings as the matter relates to insurance claim of ECM which was allegedly stolen from the vehicle. It is stated that the matter relating to non payment of charges by the complainant for the denting/painting job undertaken by respondent no.2 does not relate to respondent no.2.
29. It is stated that complainant has made allegations against another dealer M/s DD Motors, Peeragarhi, New Delhi but said dealer has not been impleaded as a party. It is further stated that the allegations of deficiency of service alleged to be committed by DD Motors can only be answer by the said dealer, therefore, DD Motors is a necessary party and present complaint is filed without impleading M/s DD Motors, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action for negligence nor complainant set out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against respondent no.1. It is stated that respondent no.2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle has given a very specific warranty for the vehicle and same are mentioned in the terms of the owners manual supplied to the complainant at the time of sale of the vehicle. It is stated that as per terms of warranty and during the period of warranty the manufacturer of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is required to repair or replace (lie component shown to be defective because of faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacturer of the said component only.
30. It is stated that present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ill motive and illegal design to harass and illegally extract money from the respondents and for this reason the complainant has purposely and preplanned the entire episode and intentionally did not pay the charges for fitment of the ECM and also the denting/painting work undertaken by respondent no.1 after specific approval given by  the complainant.
31. It is stated that the true facts are that an important of vehicle called ECM was stolen from the vehicle on the night of 28.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 when the vehicle was parked by complainant outside his house. It is stated that when complainant came to know this fact when the vehicle did not start in the morning of 29.12.2010 and he called a mechanic from the workshop of respondent no.1 to check the starting problem. It is further stated that on examination of the vehicle it came to light that the ECM of the vehicle has been stolen. It is stated that complainant made a complaint of theft to police and no FIR was recorded.
32. It is stated that it appears that complainant sent a registered letter dated 04.01.2011 to the DCP Outer District Delhi Police for lodging the FIR and taking further action and finally FIR was registered on 02.03.2011. It is stated that meanwhile complainant informed the insurer of the vehicle on 04.01.2011 for the theft of ECM and left the vehicle at workshop of respondent no.1 for fitment of new ECM under the insurance claim. It is further stated that complainant filed the required form for insurance claim and also wrote a letter addressed to insurance company in his own handwriting narrating the incident of theft of ECM. It is stated that the officials of respondent no.1 than informed the insurance company in respect of claim lodged by complainant.
33. It is stated that surveyor of the insurance company inspected the vehicle of the complainant at the premises of respondent no.1 but complainant failed to submit the FIR and investigation status with the surveyor, therefore, the claim for the theft of ECM was not processed by respondent no.3. It is stated that the officials of respondent no.1 also informed the complainant a number of times over telephone for submitting the copy of FIR and investigation status report but complainant failed and finally surveyor submitted his report dated 30.03.2011 to the insurance company approving the claim regarding loss due to theft of ECM.
34. It is stated that the claim for the loss due to theft is not covered under the cashless scheme as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and complainant has to claim the amount directly from the insurance company. Therefore, respondent demanded the payment of price of the new ECM fitted and also labour charges total amounting to Rs.14,436/- but the complainant illegally and malafidely did not pay the amount despite repeated reminders. It is further stated that complainant thereafter requested that dents and scratches be also removed from the vehicle by denting and painting process and he shall make the payment and this claim will not be covered under the insurance policy. It is stated that complainant demanded the complete details of the expenses to be paid for denting and painting jobs and respondent no.1 by email dated 08.01.2011 sent the complete details alongwith photographs of the scratches and also told to the complainant that this denting painting job shall be started upon specific approval of the complainant.
35. It is stated that insurance company appointed surveyor to verify the claim with regard to dents and scratches suffered upon the vehicle. It is stated that complainant while lodging the claim with insurance company on 04.01.2011 did not make any mention as to how the alleged scratches were made on his vehicle nor made any claim for the denting and painting, therefore, there was no occasion for respondent no.1 to forward this claim to insurance company as claim of theft of ECM was already duly forwarded. It is stated that complainant sent his approval by email dated 08.01.2011 and was aware that he has to pay Rs.21,480/- which is not covered under the insurance claim. It is further stated that respondent no.1 upon getting the approval started the denting painting job as the dents and scratches were spread all over the body of the vehicle.
36. It is stated that the lift in the workshop of the respondent no.1 developed some fault and this delayed the job for which complainant was duly informed. It is stated that the malafide and illegal intention of the complainant is writ large as he first induced the respondent no.1 by approving the job work for denting painting of dents and scratches and after having the work done does not want to pay. It is further stated that the complainant during the denting and painting job also requested the respondent no.1 to do third service of the vehicle as per schedule and same was done on 21.01.2011. It is stated that complainant was sent the complete payment details and requested to take delivery of the vehicle after making the due payment but complainant with malafide intentions started making false and baseless correspondence to avoid making payment. It is stated that written reminders were sent dated 27.01.2011, 01.02.2011, 10.01.2011 and 15.05.2011 calling upon the complainant to make the payment and take the delivery of the vehicle as vehicle was unnecessarily occupying the space at the workshop and causing great hardship. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
37. On merit all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is stated that there is a due of Rs.41,805/-. It is stated that complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the complaint.
38. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint.
39. OP2 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant has failed to set out any case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against OP2. It is further stated that the liability of OP2 is under the warranty which is part and parcel of the same contract is specifically set out under the warranty policy as enumerated in the owners manual and service booklet. It is stated that complainant has concealded several facts from this Hon’ble Forum to mislead and to obtain undue gains, therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed.
40. It is stated that complainant is not a consumer as per section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is stated that complainant neither entered into any contract for the sale of goods/accidental repair/nor hired any service for consideration and the alleged transaction happened between the complainant and OP1 and OP3 insurance company. It is further stated that the accidental repairs are not covered under clause 4 (d) of the warranty. It is further stated that the vehicle in question has a history of accidental/body repairs and complainant is using the vehicle for his commercial/business purposes, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
41. It is stated that present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of proper and necessary parties. It is stated that complainant has wrongly impleaded OP2 as a party and same is required to be deleted from the array of parties. It is further stated that OP2 never denied any warranty benefits to the complainant. It is further stated that OP1 is an independent entity having its own MOA and OP2 has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer and relationship between the OP2 and dealers is that of principal to principal basis. It is stated that the allegations in the complaint due not constitute any consumer dispute between the complainant and OP2, therefore, this hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act as complainant has no locus standi.
42. It is stated that OP2 i.e. MSIL being manufacturer gives warranty to all its new vehicles. It is stated that the said warranty terms are part of sale  contract and are binding on both the parties. It is further stated that the said warranty is the only obligation of this OP2 and is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms from the date of purchase. It is stated that said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions & limitation as enumerated in Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. It is stated as per periodic maintenance schedule the customer has to compulsorily obtain 1^st free inspection service at 1000 kms or 1 month, 2^nd free inspection  service at 5000 kms or 6 months and 3^rd inspection service at 10,000 kms or 12 months (whichever comes first) from the date of purchase. It is stated that apart from 3 free services, two paid services has to be obtained at 20,000 kms or 24 months and 30,000 or 36 months from the date of purchase of vehicle. It is further stated that as per clause 3 the obligation of this OP2 is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. It is further stated that the obligation under warranty of the OP is specific as set in the owners manual. It is stated that I won’t be out  of place to mention that the vehicle in question is defect free and in perfect roadworthy condition. It is stated that the complainant in order to exert legal pressure upon the Ops has filed the false and frivolous case to gain unjustified benefits.
43. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP2 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections. It is stated that as evident from the record the complainant is making the purposeful use of vehicle and as plied for more than 7420 kms as on 21.01.2011 and obtained third free service on 21.01.2011. It is further stated that the vehicle in question has undergone all the checks and only then final check OK was given by OP2 before dispatching to its dealers. It is stated that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop of M/s DD Motors and clutch set accessories was replaced free of cost as a gesture of goodwill to the complainant. It is further stated that complainant after service and repairs took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction without any protest and demur as evident from his signatures on the job card, retail cash memo and gate pass.
44. It is stated that the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP1 at Wazirpur Delhi for obtaining 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection service on 29.03.2010 at 555 kms, on 27.08.2010 at 8404 kms which is excess of 3404 kms which is grave violation of warranty terms. It  is stated that complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed in the complaint.
45. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
46. OP3 filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objections that the above complaint of the complainant is with regards to the policy taken by the ct for his vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CP 5759 vide policy no. 71045601 valid for the period 23.02.2010 to 22.02.2011.
47. It is stated that above noted complainant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and is also an attempt to mislead this Hon’ble Forum for making unlawful gains to themselves and loss to the answering OP. It is further stated that the present complaint is at all not maintainable as the same is based on wrong facts and are based on mere conjectures and surmises that are far from reality and the complaint is thus liable to be dismissed at the very outset with heavy costs.
48. It is stated that in the present complaint the complainant has failed to show any deficiency in service or adoption of any unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the part of the answering OP3 and has thus failed to make out any case against the answering respondent no.3. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also with costs. It is further stated that the complainant had raised three claims with the answering OP3 and all of them have been settled. It is stated that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs as against the answering OP as noting has been made out against them.
49. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP3 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections.
50. Complaint filed rejoinder to the WS of OP3 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of complaint.
51. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit and reiterated contents of complainant.
52. OP1 and 2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Harish Arora, Director, and reiterated contents of written statement.
53. OP3 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. S. Das Gupta Deputy Manager. In the affidavit contents of WS reiterated. OP3 relied on Ex.RW1/1 (colly) claim and settlement of claim.
54. Written arguments filed by complainant, OP1, 2 and 3.
55. We have heard Sh. Mayank Panday counsel for OP2. None appeared on behalf of complainant and OP3. However, we have gone through written arguments filed by complainant and OP3.
56. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle Maruti Omni having registration no. DL8CP5759 which was purchased on 23.02.2010 from OP1 manufactured by OP2 and got insured with OP3. As per allegations of complainant the Electronic Control Module (ECM) was stolen from the vehicle on the intevening night of 28.12.2010 and 29.12.2010. The complainant lodged the report with the police and FIR was registered on 02.03.2011. The complainant visited OP1 for fitment of new ECM under the insurance claim. The OP3 insurance company appointed surveyor for the claim of theft of ECM. The complainant failed to establish as per terms and conditions of the policy that claim of theft of ECM is covered under the cashless scheme. The complainant demanded new ECM fitted in the vehicle alongwith labour charges of Rs.14,336/-. As per allegations OP1 also carried out denting and painting repair work in the vehicle as per approval given by complainant through email dated 08.01.2011 which cost Rs.21,480/-. The complainant also failed to establish on record that denting and painting work was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no document filed on record by the complainant to establish that at any point of time he lodged claim for denting and painting Rs.21,480/-. According to OP1 the total due against complainant is Rs.41805/- which complainant failed to pay despite several reminders. These facts establish that there is no deficiency on the part of OP1, 2 and 3. It is pertinent to mention that as per facts disclosed by OP1and 2 by filing application that complainant has already sold the vehicle to one Parvinder Singh during the pendency of the present complaint and he is no more the owner of the vehicle. The photocopy of the RTO office portal detail filed on record. The counsel for OP1 and 2 also relied on the judgment of Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba Deshraj & Anr. RP No.2562/2012 NC, Honda Cars Ltd. Vs. Jitender Singh Madaan & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 258 (NC) and Ansar Pasha Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. IV (2011) CPJ 107 (NC). We have gone through the judgments. The complainant has concealded the material facts that during the pendency of the present complaint without seeking the permission for sale the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to Parminder Singh therefore, ceases to be consumer, therefore, present complaint complaint is not maintainable. The present case is squarely covered as per the above judgments referred by OP1 and 2. On merit as well complainant failed to establish deficiency of service against OP1 to 3.
57. On the basis of above observation and discussion, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room. 
58. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  22.11.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER