Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member . <br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift Car bearing Regd. No. OR-17-F-1017 from Opposite Party No.4(four) which was insured with the Opposite Party No.5(five) through Opposite Party No.2(two) vide Policy No. 4122429 being effective from Dt.01/05/2008 to Dt.30/04/2009, the Cover Note having been issued by Opposite Party No.4(four), the Maruti Dealer. The vehicle had been purchased under loan/finance from Opposite Party No.6(six) H.D.F.C. Ltd. The vehicle was severaly damaged in an accident on Dt. 02/11/2008 and the Complainant produced the same in the work-shop of Opposite Party No.3(three) for repair vide job card No. 08003965 Dt.02/11/2008. A vehicle produced by Maruti company and insured under Maruti Insurance meeting an accident, the owner is required to inform the nearest dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. who shall make arrangement to take/carry/pull the damaged vehicle to its workshop and repair the same providing all required parts covered under insurance. The Opposite Party No.3(three) did not repair the vehicle till Dt.16/12/2008 and on being asked about the reason the Opposite Party No.3(three) told the Complainant that he should produce the same in the work shop of Opposite Party No.4(four) from which he has purchased the car. Over and above the Opposite Party No.3(three) demanded and received from the Complainant Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only towards parking charges. There after the Complainant produced the damaged vehicle in the workshop of Opposite Party No.4(four) vide Job Card No. 08004507 Dt.25/12/2008.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that he has been paying installment to the financer Opposite Party No.6(six) without using the vehicle for the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of Maruti Insurance of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. And its authorized dealer such as Orbit Motors Rourkela. Odyssey Motors, Sambalpur besides the National Insurance Company who has appointed Opposite Party No.2(two) as their agent.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to repair the vehicle and to pay the amount of loss covered under the insurance and to pay all the installment due in respect of the financer of the vehicle with effect from Dt.02/11/2008 till the date of delivery of the vehicle. Further he claims from the Opposite Parties an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only towards mental agony and harassment, a litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and a direction to Opposite Party No.3(three) to refund Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only with compensation which he had retained from the Complainant towards parking charges and a direction to the Opposite Parties to enhance the insurance coverage from the period the vehicle remained unused in their workshop with effect from Dt. 02/11/2008.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) in their joint version, question the maintainability of the complaint in this Forum on the ground of (a) lack of territorial jurisdiction (b) the Complainant not being a consumer under Section 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act (c ) there being no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and (d) for mis-joinder of Parties, the present Opposite Parties neither being necessary nor proper Parties to the Complainant. The Complainant has also, allegedly, fails to substantiate his claim for compensation against these Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties also contend that Maruti Insurance is a Corporate Agent of National Insurance company and the premium goes to the Opposite Party No.5(five). The Opposite Party No.5(five) conducts survey and assesses the damage caused to the vehicle through its independent surveyor. Maruti Insurance has no say in the matter which is governed by the terms laid down by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority. The relationship between the Opposite Parties and its authorized dealer is that of principal to principal basis governed by dealership agreement and no liability can be enforced on these Opposite Parties for the ommission and commission of dealerships. It is also not the case of the Complainant about warranty services. The Complainant has no case for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against these Opposite Parties and so the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three), in its version, say that it did not repair the vehicle because the National Insurance Company did not appoint a Surveyor for the inspection of the vehicle and this Opposite Party legally received the parking charge of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only from the Complainant. It further contends that there is no breach of agreement or warranty or negligence on behalf of Opposite Party NO.3(three) for filing of the Complaint. The Complainant also suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of Parties, barred by limitation and the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against this Opposite Party is false. It prays for dismissal of the complainant with cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.4(four) in its version admits that, the Complainant has purchased the vehicle from it which has been insured with the National Insurance Company through Maruti Insurance, an agent of the National Insurance Company. The repairing of insured vehicle can be undertaken by any authorized Maruti dealer if it is insured through Maruti Insurance. The damaged vehicle was received by the Opposite Party No.4(four) on Dt.25/12/2008 but the necessary documents was received on Dt.30/12/2008 and the Opposite Party No.5(five) made the Survey on Dt.01/01/2009. It contends that there is no case against this Opposite Party hence, the case may be dismissed against it.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.5(five) questions the maintainability of the complaint against it on ground of both fact and law as well as the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the case. In order to claim indemnity the insured must prove that it has not violated any of the policy condition. The amount of damage claimed by the Complainant is too high and the Complainant has not filed any cash memo or documents to prove it. It is the mandatory duty to the insured to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident and other necessary details. There is no claim made against this Opposite Party by the Complainant and there remains no cause of action against this Opposite Party and as such the case be dismissed against it.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.6(six) admits having financed the vehicle and that there is no allegation against this Opposite Party of any deficiency of service, committed towards the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.6(six) also questions the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain this complaint. The Opposite Party No.6(six) prays for dismissal of the case against it.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint petition, Opposite Parties version as well as the copy of documents filed in respect of the case and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant being a consumer in relation to all the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Party No.5(five) having its branch office and the other Opposite Parties doing their business with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum this complaint is very much triable by this Forum. The complaint does not suffer from lack of cause of action nor for mis-joinder or non-joinder of necessary party. The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two), No.3(three) and No.4(four) are branches of the same tree i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. working in furtherance of the business interest of Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.5(five) is also connected with the above Opposite Parties in so far as the Opposite Party NO.2(two) is its agent for insuring product of Opposite Party No.1(one) and the interest of Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.5(five) being complimentary in some way or other.<br /> <br /> The Complainant having admittedly purchased the vehicle in question from the Opposite Party No.4(four) and having insured the same with Opposite Party NO.5(five) through Opposite Party No.2(two) and the Opposite Party No.6(six) being the financer, the Complainant is a consumer to all the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The vehicle met with an accident on Dt. 02/11/2008 and was produced in the work shop of Opposite Party No.3(three) for repair on the same date. The Opposite Party No.3(three) after keeping the vehicle from Dt. 02/11/2008 to Dt. 16/12/2008 told the Complainant to take the vehicle to Opposite Party No.4(four) for the purpose from which it had been purchased.<br /> <br /> Admittedly, a Maruti car insured through Maruti Insurance can be repaired by any authorized Maruti Dealer, if it meets an accident despite the fact that it might have been purchased from some other dealer. But Opposite Party No.3(three) did not repair it and claimed and received parking charges of Rs. 2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only from the Complainant, in spite of being an authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1(one) and as per the insurance scheme being duty bound to repair the same. The Complainant has insured the vehicle by making payment of the required premium on Dt. 01/05/2008 and the fact is not disputed by the Opposite Party No.2(two) through whom the vehicle was insured. If the premium was paid to the Opposite Party No.5(five) on Dt. 28/07/2008, then it amounts to negligent and deficiency service on the part of Opposite Party No.2(two) towards the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.4(four) has accepted the vehicle on Dt.16/12/2008 for repair but has completed the repair work only on Dt.11/05/2009 after more than two months of filing of this complaint and after retaining four and half months in its workshop.<br /> <br /> In the process of taking the damaged vehicle to the Opposite Party No.3(three) which refused to repair it after keeping it in its work shop for about one and half months and receiving parking charges and the Opposite Party No.4(four) retaining the vehicle for about four and half months for repair, the Complainant has been subjected to much harassment without his fault and also he has been deprived from using the vehicle during the said period. Such act of negligence and harassment of the Complainant and also non payment of the insured amount tantamount to deficiency of service on th part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to No.5(five) on different contest.<br /> <br /> There is no cause of action against the Opposite Party No.6(six) and the Complainant does not seek any relief from the said Opposite Party. Hence this Opposite Party is exempted from any liability.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed and ordered as follows:-<br /> (a) The Opposite party No.3(three) is directed to refund to the Complainant Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred)only along with interest over the amount @ 9%(nine percent) per annum chargeable from Dt.16/12/2008 till the date of payment. He shall pay to the Complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation.<br /> <br /> (b) The Opposite Party No.4(four) is directed to pay a cost/compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> ( c) The Opposite Party No.5(five) is directed to make payment of the repair charges in respect of the insured vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-F-1017.<br /> <br /> The above order shall be carried out by the Opposite Parties with in thirty days hence failing which the amount under order shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />