DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.432/2010
Sh. G.S. Bairwa, Advocate
B-11/156, Madangir,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. D.M. Bhardwaj, Chief General Manager
2. Sh. Sandeep Manchandni, Manager
M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
895/C-8, Jain Mandir, Dada Bari,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
3. M.G. Motors
(Authorized Dealer for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.)
Tijara Road, Alwar (Raj.) 301001
4. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Div. No.10, Flat No.101-106,
EMC House, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.07.2010 Date of Order : 28.05.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he had insured Alto Car bearing registration No.DL-2CAF-2225 with the OP No.1 (sic) on 17.10.09. On 18.04.10, he contacted the OP No.2 for service but after one week of service the engine of the vehicle developed mechanical defect and he contacted the OP No.2. OP No.2 repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.5418/- from him though at the time of service the OP No.2 had stated that no amount will be charged. On 15.06.10, when he was going to Mount Abu, Rajasthan, Alwar, all of a sudden the oil from the gear box started falling. He showed the vehicle to OP No.3 (Maruti Showroom) and OP No.3 charged Rs.16,400/- and refused for the insurance claim on the ground that the vehicle no. mentioned is correct but the address is not correct. On 19.06.10, he contacted the OP No.2 (sic) for claim. OP No.2 stated that the vehicle is not Okay and gave assurance that the problem will be resolved within 2 days and OP No. 2 gave the Company Car No.DL-2CQ-0505 to him for use but till date the OP No.2 has not passed his claim on one pretext or the other. Due to the acts of the OPs, he has suffered huge financial losses @ Rs.15,000/- per day and also suffered physical and mental agony. The OPs have not returned his vehicle till date. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs the Complainant has prayed as under:-
Direct the OPs to pay Rs.21,518/- as claim to the Complainant and Rs. One Lac as compensation/damages.
OP No.1 & 2 in their written statement have stated that Complainant visited the workshop on 18.04.10 for paid service with the mileage of 100168 kms. and he again visited on 14.06.10 for paid service with the mileage of 103877 kms. as within the period of two months, the vehicle had been run more than 3700 kms. without any fault/problem. Hence, there is no question of any defect of service on the part of OP No.1 & 2. The vehicle might have developed some faults later on which could have happened as the vehicle could have got hit somewhere or there was defective driving by the Complainant that is why the gear box was overhauled at OP No.3. The work on the car does not mean that the service of the car was defective. As per Company Policy the workshop provided only three free services on the approx. mileage of 1000, 5000 and 10000. Since the Complainant’s vehicle was of 2005 and had already done more than 100000 there is no possibility of the complainant for getting any free services and hence charges of Rs.5418/- towards the service of the vehicle were charged as legal dues from the Complainant. There was no fault in the service by the OP No.1 & 2. The OP No.1 & 2 had nothing to do with the insurance claim. The OP No.3 ought to have processed the same at the time of the repair of the vehicle or the Complainant would have its own process for claiming with the insurance company. It is denied that because of OP No.1 & 2 the Complainant suffered huge financial losses @ Rs.15,000/- per day and also suffered from physical mental tension and agony. The OP No.1 & 2 have further stated that the car is in the possession of the Complainant as he had come for the service of the vehicle in the month of February, 2011. OP No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.
OP No. 3 has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.12.11 passed by our predecessors.
In the written statement OP No.4 has stated that the Complainant had not given/submitted any written intimation of the claim to the OP No.4. The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of consequential loss, depreciation, wear and tear,
mechanical and electrical breakdown failures or breakages and services charges and the same are not covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy. OP No.4 has stated that the car had not met with any accident by external means and the complaint has arisen due to service and mechanical defect in the vehicle for which the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount as per section 1(F) and 2 (2) of the terms and conditions of the policy. OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of OP No.1, 2 & 4 and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. Averments made by OP-1 and OP-2 in their written statement have not been specifically denied by the complainant.
Affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of the Complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Surinder Singh, Showroom Manger of OP No.1 & 2 and affidavit of Sh. V.B. Sharma, Administrative Officer of OP No.4 have been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
Arguments have been advanced on behalf of OP No. 1, 2 & 4.
It is evident that the Complainant had a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.DL-2CAF-2225 (Make 2005) which was got insured from OP No.4. The Complainant visited the OP No.1 & 2 for service of the vehicle on 18.04.2010 and at that time mileage of the car was 100168 and again he had visited OP-1 & 2 for service on 14.06.2010 i.e. within a period of two months. By that time, the car had done 103877 Kms. The OP No.1 & 2 charged Rs.5418/- for service. When the Complainant was going to Mount Abu, Rajasthan there was some problem in the gear box and he had got repaired the car from OP No.3 who charged Rs.16,400/- from the complainant. According to the complainant, OP-1 & 2 had given their company car No. DL 2CQ 0505 to him for use on 19.6.2010 but these OPs have not returned his own car to him. In our considered opinion, complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint for some extraneous reasons. Firstly, according to him, on 18.4.2010, OP-2 had “extorted” Rs. 5418/- from him when he had gone for the service of the vehicle. Undeniably, the vehicle in question is 2005 make. Undeniably, 1st, 2nd and 3rd services were to be given after covering the mileage of 1000, 5000, 10000. Undeniably as on 18.4.2010 the car in question had already done 100168 Kms. Therefore, the question of giving any free service in respect of the repairs of the car to the complainant could never arise. Therefore, question of committing “extortion” (which is punishable under the provisions of IPC) could never arise. Therefore, this fact itself shows that the complainant has suppressed material facts and concocted false story while filing the complaint.
Secondly, when OP-3 charged Rs. 16,400/- from the complainant, the complainant was to claim the insurance claim from OP-4 through OP-3. It is he who had to initiate the process of claim. It was OP-4 who was the Insurance Company who could pay the insurance claim, if any, to the complainant. However, instead of doing so the complainant contacted the OP-2 for insurance claim though OP-2 had nothing to do with the insurance claim.
Thirdly, according to complainant, on 19.6.2010, OP-2 had given company car No. DL 2CQ 0505 to the complainant for use but till date the OP-2 has not returned his own car to him. In the written statement OP-1 & 2 have categorically stated that the car in question is in possession of the complainant himself and he had brought the same to their workshop in the month of Feb., 2011. The said fact has not been denied by the complainant. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that the car in question has in fact been in possession of the complainant. Rather, it is the complainant who had not disclosed as to whether he has returned car bearing No. DL 2CQ 0505 to OP-2. There is no iota of material on the record to even suggest that the complainant had ever made any insurance claim with OP-4 either directly or through OP-3. Therefore, neither OP-3 nor OP-4 were/are to pay any amount towards insurance claim to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs. 8,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OPs in ratio of 25% each within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 28.05.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 432/2010
28.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 8,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OPs in ratio of 25% each within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
