THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 503 of 2013
Date of Institution : 17.7.2013
Date of Decision : 21.05.2015
Vijay Kumar Mahajan C/o Prem Printing Press, Katra Sher Singh,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Maruti Suzuki Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director having office at Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Rishabh Four Wheels Pvt.Ltd., Batala Road, Amritsar through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., having its branch office at The Mall, Ebony Building, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the opposite parties No.1 & 2 : Sh. S.K.Davessar,Advocate
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Amit Bhatia,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Mahajan under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has purchased car Maruti SX4 bearing registration No. PB 02 BG 7422 from opposite party No.2 and got the same insured from opposite party No.3 vide policy No. 0109263600 valid till 8.2.2014. According to the complainant on 28.3.2013 when complainant alongwith his family members was coming from Pathankot to Amritsar, the air bags of the vehicle automatically got opened and caused injuries to the complainant. But the complainant and his family who were travelling in the vehicle got saved from major disaster and their lives were saved. The complainant took the said vehicle to opposite party No.2 and lodged complaint that air bags automatically got opened and opposite party No.2 kept the vehicle with them and gave their job sheet No. 8297 dated 30.3.2013 and gave estimate alonwith its service of vehicle amounting to Rs. 5830/-. Complainant has alleged that later on opposite party No.2 stated that as the vehicle was hit by stone from beneath which resulted opening of air bags and its accident because air bags only open when vehicle is hit from front and opposite party No.2 lodged claim with opposite party No.3 for claim of accident. But till the filing of the present complaint neither the opposite party No.2 nor opposite party No.3 got the vehicle of the complainant repaired and delivered back to the complainant and is still lying with opposite party No.2 which amounts to deficiency of service . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to deliver the vehicle to complainant after getting it repaired. Opposite party No.3 be directed to pay claim as per bills of opposite party No.2. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant bought the vehicle in question from opposite party No.2 on 4.1.2010 and the warranty obligtion had concluded on 3.1.2012 by efflux of time. As such the present complaint is barred by limitation. It was denied that air bags automatically got opened or caused injuries to the complainant. It was rather submitted that while driving the vehicle on 28.2.2013 , it met with major accident underbody hit/damage and due to external hit on the lower chamber through a stone, the air bag sensor received the signal and the air bag got inflated/deployed. It was submitted that complainant has suffered due to his own negligent and careless acts. It was denied that the air bags only get inflated when the vehicle gets hit from front as alleged by the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.2 for obtaining body repairs on 30.3.2013 at 18095 km after much expiry of warranty period. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop in presence of the complainant and found underbody hit by stone caused inflation of air bags of the vehicle. The same was also inspected by the independent surveyor after the complainant lodged complaint with the insurance company. It was submitted that the complainant vide his declaration made in the insurnace claim form , opposite party No.3 has submitted the cause of accident due to underbody hit of stone, the air bags got opened on 28.3.2013. As such the complainant cannot wriggle out from his own admission regarding the same fact. It was submitted that insurance company as per their rules and regulations approved the claim lodged by the complainant, however, the complainant later refused to take the claim from oppostie party No.3 and filed the present complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that the vehicle in question met with an accident (underbody hit/damage) and due to external hit through a stone on the lower chamber of the car , air bag sensor received a signal and the air bags got deployed . The vehicle in question is out of warranty period and as such the present complaint is barred by limitation. It was submitted that complainant vide his declaration made in the insurance claim form submitted to oppsotie party No.3, has submitted the cause of accident “due to underbody hit of stone the air bags got opened on 28.3.2013 and the complainant made said declaration on the insurance claim form by putting his signatures due to external hit and cannot wriggle out from his own admission . It was denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle . It was submitted tht complainant was interested to get repair on free of cost basis by way of putting pressure and filing the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the air bags got opened automatically and as such it is a manufacturing defect. As such in view of the admissions of the complainant, there is no deficiency on the part of insurer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that no claim was ever lodged nor any claim form was signed by the complainant and opposite party No.2 has made up a false stody to mislead this Forum. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidene his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3, copy of claim form Ex.C-3, Insurance cover note Ex.C-4.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Gaurav Negi Ex.OP1/1, copy of dealership agreement Ex.OP1/2, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP1/3, copy of letter dated 5.4.2013 Ex.OP1/4, copy of postal receipt Ex.OP1/5. Copy of claim form Ex.OP1/6, copy of letter of complainant Ex.OP1/7.
7. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Akhil Arora, Director Ex.OP2/1,copy of letter dated 5.4.2013 Ex.OP2/2, copy of postal receipt Ex.OP2/3, copy of letter dated 24.4.2013 Ex.OP2/4, copy of postal receipt regarding sending of letter Ex.OP2/5, copy of letter dated 16.5.2013 Ex.OP2/6, copy of postal receipt Ex.OP2/7, copy of claim registration form Ex.OP2/8, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP2/9.
8. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavits of Ms. Meenu Sharma Ex.OP3/1, copy of policy Ex.OP3/2, terms and conditions Ex.OP3/3, copy of surveyor report Ex.OP3/4, repudiation letter Ex.OP3/5, copy of statement of Sumit Mahajan dated 25.5.20134 Ex.OP3/6.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
10. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Maruti SX4 car bearing registration No. PB 02 BG 7422 from opposite party No.2 which was got insured from opposite party No.3 vide insurance policy bearing No. 0109263600 Ex.C-4 for the period from 9.2.2013 to 8.2.2014. The complainant alleged that on 28.3.2013 when the complainant alongwith his family members was returning to Amritsar from Pathankot, the Air bags of the vehicle automatically got opened and caused injuries to the complainant, who was driving the vehicle. However, the complainant and his family members, who were travelling in the said vehicle got saved from major disaster. The complainant took the vehicle to opposite party No.2
and lodged complaint that opening of Air bags automatically, is manufacturing defect. The complainant also lodged complaint through e-mail to opposite party No.1 manufacturer of the vehicle. Opposite party No.2 kept the vehicle vide job sheet dated 30.3.2013 and gave estimate alongwith service of vehicle amounting to Rs. 5830/- Ex.C-2. However, opposite party No.2 stated that the vehicle was hit by stone from beneath which resulted into the opening of the Air bags and the said accident. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the Air bags only open when the vehicle is hit from front and not by hit of stone from beneath the vehicle. Even the opposite party No.2 did not repair the vehicle nor the opposite party No.3 paid any claim to the complainant. As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service qua the complainant.
11. Whereas the case of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant bought the vehicle in question from opposite party No.3 on 4.1.2010. The warranty obligtion had expired on 3.1.2012 whereas the accident took place on 28.2.2013. As such the complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 submitted that on 28.2.2013 the vehicle in question met with an accident underbody hit/damage and due to external hit on the lower member though a stone, the air bag sensor received the signal and the air bags got inflated/deployed. The complainant has suffered due to his own negligence, carelessness or due to accident for which the opposite party No.1 is not responsible . Such accidental repair is not covered under clause 4(d)(e) & (h) of warranty of the vehicle. Opposite party further submitted that apart from frontal collision , the air bag sensor if gets triggered after hitting some portion of the vehicle with much intensity the air bags get open. The complainant sent the vehicle to workshop of opposite party No.2 for obtaining repair on 30.3.2013 at 18095 kms coverage and that too after expiry of warranty period. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop in the presence of the complainant and found underbody hit by stone which caused inflation of air bag of the vehicle. The vehicle was inspected by the expert service engineer and independent surveyor after the complainant lodged claim with the Insurance company, who also reported that the cause of accident was due to underbody hit of stone, as a result of which the air bags got opened. The complainant also made self declaration on the Insurance Claim Form by putting his signatures about the external hit. As such he cannot wriggle out from his own admission regarding this fact. Opposite party further submitted that the Insurance company i.e. opposite party No.3 as per their rules and regulations/terms and conditions of the policy approved the claim lodged by the complainant. However, complainant later refused to take claim from opposite party No.3 and filed this false and frivolous complaint. The complainant has not filed any expert report of the expert to prove that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. The complainant had abondoned the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No.2. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
12. Whereas the case of opposite party No.3 is that the complainant has specifically stated that automatically opening of air bags is a manufacturing defect. So in view of the admission of the complainant, opposite party No.3 is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the insurer i.e. opposite party No.3 qua the complainant. No claim was ever lodged nor any claim form was signed by the complainant. Opposite party No.2 has made up a false story that opposite party No.3 has settled the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that as no claim has been filed by the complainant with the opposite party No.3, so there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3 qua the complainant.
13. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Maruti SX4 car bearing registration No. PB 02 BG 7422 from opposite party No.2 on 4.1.2010. The warranty of this product was for 2 years which expired on 3.1.2012 by efflux of time. On 28.2.2013 when the complainant alongwith his family members was coming from Pathankot to Amritsar, Air bags of the vehicle got opened as a result of which the complainant who was driving the said vehicle suffered injuries. The complainant alleges that the Air bags automatically opened due to inherent/manufacturing defect in the vehicle, whereas the opposite parties allege that due to external hit through a stone on the lower chamber of the car, the air bags sensor received the signal and the air bags got inflated/deployed. So it is an act of accident and opposite party No.3 is liable to pay the amount spent by the complainant, if any on the repair of the vehicle in question. Moreover, the alleged accidental repair is not covered under clause 4(d)(e) & (h) of warranty of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being manufacturer gives warranty to all its new vehicles and the said primary warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40000 kms from the date of purchase. Said warranty is also not absolute and is subject to terms and conditions and limitations as enumerated in owner's manual and service booklet. Present vehicle is out of the warranty period.
14. It is the admitted fact that complainant purchased this vehicle on 4.1.2010 from opposite party No.2 with warranty of two years which had since concluded on 3.1.2012. This accident took place on 28.2.2013. The plea of the complainant that the Air bags of the vehicle in question opened automatically due to manufacturing/inherent defect in the vehicle, is not tenable because the vehicle plied on the road for more than three years. Had there been any inherent/manufacturing defect in the vehicle , this would have happened within short period of the vehicle coming on the road i.e. from the date of purchase. Not only this the complainant made declaration in the insurance Claim form submitted to opposite party No.3 under head “cause of accident due to underbody hit of stone, air bags got opened on 28.3.2013” and this declaration bears the signatures of the complainant. So the complainant cannot wriggle out from his own admission. As such the plea taken by opposite party No.1 that due to external hit through a stone on the lower chamber of the car, the air bags sensor received the signal and the air bags got inflated , is authentic and is acceptable and the complainant could not rebut this averment of opposite party No.1. Further the complainant himself in the claim form submitted to opposite party No.3, has stated that due to underbody hit of stone, the air bags got opened on 28.3.2013 and the complainant signed this declaration. Opposite party No.3 intentionally did not produce that claim form submitted by the complainant. Moreover, this accident took place when the warranty period had already expired. The car in question was duly insured with opposite party No.3 vide policy No. 0109263600 Ex.OP3/2 for the period from 9.2.2013 to 8.2.2014.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the damage occurred to the vehicle of the complainant as a result of accident i.e. hitting of stone from underneath as a result of which air bag sensor received the signal and the air bags got inflated. So it is the opposite party No.3 who is liable to reimburse the amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the vehicle as a result of this accident and opposite party No.1 is not liable to bear the expenses. So this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite party No.2 to repair the vehicle and submit the bills to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 is liable to settle the claim case of the complainant regarding loss occurred to the vehicle on repair basis as per terms and conditions of the policy, within one month from the date of submissions of the bills of repair of the vehicle in question by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.3. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
16. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
21.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
