IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2013
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 182/2012 (Filed on 21.11.2012)
Between:
Boney Thomas Varghese,
Karimkuttiyil House,
Chellackadu P.O.
Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk, Pin – 689 677. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Reno Zac Vadekathara)
And:
1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing-
Director, Palam – Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon – 122 015, Haryana.
(By Adv. V. Santharam & K. Haridas)
2. Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing-
Director, Mamukku,
Pazhavangadi P.O., Ranni,
Pin – 689 673,
(By Adv. P.K. Aboobacker & T.A. Saviour)
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance-
Company Ltd., represented by
Its Managing Director, 6th Floor,
Leela Business Park,
Andheri-Kuria Road, Andheri(E),
Mumbai – 400 059.
(By Adv. Sam Koshy) … Opposite parties.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is the registered owner of a Maruti Ritz car bearing registration No. KL-62/9669. The said car is manufactured by the first opposite party and it was purchased from the second opposite party and it is insured with the third opposite party. The said car was delivered by the second opposite party on 08.08.2012 at Ranni with temporary permit issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Moovattupuzha. At the time of delivery of the car, the mileage shown in the service manual was 10 Kms. In fact, the car was driven from Moovattupuzha as the temporary registration was taken from Moovattupuzha. The difference in the mileage shown in the manual and the actual mileage seen in the speedometer is an unfair trade practice of the second opposite party as it is against offer
That the car will be delivered on zero kilometer. Further, at the time of delivery, the complainant noticed that there was some missing trouble for the vehicle and the same was shown to the second opposite party who explained it as a minor problem which will be corrected during free service. They also assured that any problem within the first 24 months or 40000 Kms. will be undertaken by the first opposite party. The complainant used the car carefully and was doing regular check-ups and periodical services with the second opposite party.
3. While so on 28.09.2012, when the car had run 3941 Kms. it got brake down at Vadasserikara. The said matter was intimated to the second opposite party who took the vehicle to their workshop at Ranni. After inspection of the vehicle, the second opposite party told the complainant that the below portion of the vehicle is hit against some hard objects and the repair charge would be around Rs. 70,000/- and the same would be paid by the third opposite party as the vehicle had valid insurance policy with the third opposite party. So the claim for the said amount submitted before the third opposite party as directed by the second opposite party. But the third opposite party repudiated the claim by saying that the policy will not cover such losses which is against the undertaking given by the third opposite party at the time of taking the policy. The above said act of the third opposite party is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Thereafter the complainant raised the claim of warranty issued by the first opposite party which can be availed through second opposite party. They also rejected the claim of the complainant in spite of the warranty offered by the first opposite party. So the complainant was forced to pay an amount of Rs. 71,001/- to the second opposite party for the repairs of the car and the car was returned on 20.10.2012 after repairs. The denial of the complainant’s claim by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of an amount of Rs. 71,001/-, the repairing charges from the opposite parties jointly and severally with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
4. The first opposite party filed a detailed version. The main contentions are as follows: According to the first opposite party, no cause of action arosed within the jurisdiction of this Forum as the purchase of the vehicle was not done within this jurisdiction and none of the opposite parties having its working place under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The complaint of the vehicle occurred due to an accident while the vehicle was driven by the complainant without observing the instructions given in the owner’s manual. So the answering opposite party is not liable to the complainant due to the violations of the warranty condition. The accidental repairs are not covered under warranty condition. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the answering opposite party. The complaint of the vehicle is not a manufacturing defect. This complaint is false and frivolous and the answering opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The second opposite party filed their version with the following contentions: The second opposite party admitted the sale and repairs of the vehicle. They denied that they have not told the complainant that the vehicle will be delivered with zero kilometer at the time of pre-buying enquiries. The Ranni sales out is under the Muvattupuzha dealership and all the vehicles at Ranni would be unloaded at Muvattupuzha by Maruti. Thereafter, the vehicles are forwarded to other outlets by another truck. In this case also, the complainant’s vehicle was forwarded through this truck. So this opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was driven from Muvattupuzha to Ranni. The allegation of the complainant that the missing problem was since from the delivery of the vehicle is not correct. The complainant never pointed out such a complaint to this opposite party. This opposite party also admitted the warranty provided by the first opposite party for 24 months or 40000 Kms. whichever is earlier. The allegation that on 21.08.2012 the vehicle was brought with missing problem and they had told that it is an initial problem which can be cured at the time of second free service is also false. The car was brought for accident repair works and on inspection it was found that the below portion of the vehicle had been hit on some hard surface which resulted in a major work and the cost of the repair work is Rs. 70,000/- and it was told the complainant also and further told that the works can be done by the second opposite party at the cost of the complainant also and the complainant raised a claim before the third opposite party as the vehicle is having insurance coverage. The complainant had given his consent to repair the vehicle and accordingly this opposite party repaired the vehicle and collected the charges of the repairs from the complainant. Meanwhile, the claim was also lodged to the third opposite party.
6. Later, this opposite party had come to know that the third opposite party had rejected the claim on the ground that the damages caused to the vehicle is consequential to the accident and it was caused due to lack of reasonable care on the part of the complainant. The correctness and reasonability for the rejection of the claim by the third opposite party is on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and it is nothing to do with the other opposite parties and hence there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the first and second opposite parties in this regard. The payment of Rs. 71,000/- to this opposite party is based on the estimate and works done by the second opposite party as per the consent given by the complainant. So the allegation that the payment was made on force is also false. The first and second opposite parties are not liable to the complainant as the complaints of the vehicle does not comes within the warranty conditions and thus the answering opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant. With the above contentions, second opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
7. The main contention of the version of the third opposite party is as follows: They admitted the policy of the vehicle and the accident as well as the complainant’s claim. On receipt of the claim, third opposite party deputed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor to assess the loss. Accordingly, he had inspected the vehicle and made an assessment of the loss with notice to the complainant. As per the surveyor’s report, the damages caused to the vehicle was a consequential damage occurred after the accident. The surveyor observed that the only damage caused due to the accident is the breakage of oil pump. The damage to the engine parts, except pump was happened consequent to the running of the engine after the breakage of the oil pump. The breakage of the oil pump was occurred due to the accident and that part of the accident alone is covered under the policy conditions. The remaining damages are consequential and such damages are not covered under the policy. Accordingly, the cost of the damages covered under the policy is assessed as Rs. 1,226-70 and the said amount was given to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. So the third opposite party is not liable to pay any amount other than the amount already given to the complainant and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as claimed by him as the third opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. With the above contentions, third opposite party also prays for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 and Exts. B1 to B6. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. The Point: The complainant’s allegation against the first and second opposite parties is that his car had sustained damages due to manufacturing defects within warranty period which was not compensated by the first and second opposite parties in spite of the warranty conditions. So he was compelled to pay Rs. 70,001/- to the second opposite party as repairing charges. At the same time, the complainant further alleged that the damage sustained to his car is due to an accident which is not compensated by the third opposite party inspite of the valid insurance policy issued by the third opposite party. The claim is related to the repairs done by the second opposite party.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the owner’s manual of the complainant’s car issued by the first opposite party. Ext. A2 is the temporary registration certificate of the complainant’s car issued from Regional Transport Officer, Muvattupuzha. Ext. A3 is the invoice of the complainant’s car issued by Indus Motors, Muvattupuzha. Ext. A4 is the copy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s car issued from Sub Regional Transport Officer, Ranni. Ext. A5 is the insurance policy certificate of the complainant’s car issued by third opposite party. Ext. A6 is the invoice dated 20.10.2012 for Rs. 71,001/- issued by Indus Motors, Ranni in the name of the complainant.
12. The contention of the first and second opposite parties is that the damages sustained to the complainant’s car is not due to the manufacturing defects. But it was occurred due to an accident by an hit of its lower part with a hard object. Consequent to the said hit, the oil was drained out and some of the engine parts were damaged consequently. The said damages are not covered under the warranty conditions, though this damage had occurred within the warranty period. The repairs were carried by the second opposite party with the consent of the complainant and the repairing charges of Rs. 71,001/- was received from the complainant. This being the facts, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint against the first and second opposite parties. So they argued for the dismissal of the complaint against them.
13. In order to prove the contentions of the first and second opposite parties, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. At the same time, second opposite party cross examined the complainant/PW1.
14. At the same time, the contention of the third opposite party is that the entire damages sustained to the complainant’s car is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy in question. According to the third opposite party, the lower portion of the car was hit on an hard object while the complainant was driving the car. The said hit resulted in the breakage of the oil pump and leaking of the engine oil. After the breaking of the oil pump, the complainant continued the driving which resulted in the draining out the engine oil in full. Consequent to that, major damages were caused to the engine. So the major damages of the complainant’s car was consequent to the accident which is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The first part of the damages in the accident i.e. the breaking of the oil pump is covered under the policy and the loss assessed in this respect was also given to the complainant. The second part of the damage is consequential which is not covered under the policy. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.
15. In order to prove the case of the third opposite party, an authorized officer of the third opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. B1 to B6. Ext. B1 is the copy of the insurance policy of the car issued by the third opposite party. Ext. B2 is the final report dated 16.11.2012 submitted by the insurance surveyor in respect of the damages of the complainant’s car. Ext. B3 is the attested copy of GR-40 of the Indian Motor Tariff. Ext. B4 is the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Ext. B5 is the copy of the satisfaction voucher signed by the complainant. Ext. B6 is the job card/retail invoice issued by Indus Motors, Ranni in the name of the complainant.
16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the purchase of the car by the complainant, issuance of the insurance policy by the third opposite party and the repairs done by the second opposite party. The dispute is with regard to the reimbursement of the repairing cost met by the complainant for the repairs of the complainant’s car. The complainant’s claim is that the third opposite party is liable to pay the repairing cost as the said repairs were made consequent to the accident of the vehicle. Apart from the above claim, the complainant also claims that the first opposite party is liable to pay the repairing cost as the repairs were done due to the manufacturing defect. But both opposite parties denied the complainant’s claim. According to the third opposite party, the major repairing works were done for the consequential damages occurred to the vehicle after the accident which is not covered under the policy conditions. According to the first opposite party, the damage of the complainant’s car is occurred not due to any manufacturing defect, though the works were done within the warranty period.
17. In view of the contentions of the parties, it is pertinent to note that the complainant’s claim is two fold as the complainant is claiming the amount simultaneously from the insurance company as well as from the manufacturer. The complainant himself is not particular whether the repairs are is due to manufacturing defect or due to accident and who is responsible for his claim. So the complainant’s claim is a strange claim. Moreover, the complainant also failed to prove his case with cogent evidence that the damages are due to the accident or it is due to the manufacturing defect. Nobody is entitled to raise a claim simultaneously from 2 persons for a single repairing work. In the circumstances, we find no merits in this case. Therefore, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Boney Varughese Thomas.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Owner’s manual and service booklet of the complainant’s
car issued by the first opposite party.
A2 : Temporary registration certificate of the complainant’s car
issued from Regional Transport Officer, Muvattupuzha.
A3 : Invoice dated 06.08.2012 of the complainant’s car issued
by Indus Motors, Muvattupuzha.
A4 : Copy of the registration certificate of the complainant’s car
issued from Sub Regional Transport Officer, Ranni.
A5 : Insurance policy certificate of the complainant’s car issued
by third opposite party.
A6 : Invoice dated 20.10.2012 for Rs. 71,001/- issued by Indus
Motors, Ranni in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Ambili George.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of the insurance policy of the car issued by the third
opposite party.
B2 : Motor Final Survey Report dated 16.11.2012 submitted by
the insurance Surveyor in respect of the damages of the
complainant’s car.
B3 : Copy of GR-40 of the Indian Motor Tariff.
B4 : Terms and conditions of the policy.
B5 : Copy of the satisfaction voucher signed by the
complainant.
B6 : Job card retail invoice dated 25.10.2012 for Rs. 1,227/-
issued by Indus Motors, Ranni in the name of the
complainant.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Boney Thomas Varghese, Karimkuttiyil House,
Chellackadu P.O., Pazhavangadi Village,
Ranni Taluk, Pin – 689 677.
(2) Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Palam – Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015, Haryana.
(3) Managing Director, Indus Motors Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Mamukku, Pazhavangadi P.O., Ranni, Pin – 689 673.
(4) Managing Director, HDFC ERGO General Insurance-
Company Ltd., 6th Floor, Leela Business Park,
Andheri-Kuria Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 059.
(5) The Stock File.
