CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/178/15
Date of Institution:- 24.04.2015
Order Reserved on:- 04.04.2024
Date of Decision:- 03.10.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Maxbils Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Corporate office Plot No.17,
Eco City, Sector-75, Noida,
GB Nagar, UP
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- M/s AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd.
A-5, MCIE, Mathura Road,
New Delhi – 110044
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
414, Veer SavarkarMarg, Near Sidhi
Vinayak Temple, Mumbai - 400025
…..Opposite Parties
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 07.10.2013 he has purchased Jaguar Range Rover Land Rover car bearing registration No.UP16AR3333 from
OP-1 which was duly insured with OP-2 vide policy cover note no.PT11602107 valid from 07.10.2014-06.10.2015.He has been using the car with due care and caution. The service was done at regular intervals from authorised dealers. He has observed during the use of car that certain cracks have developed in the alloy rim and he immediately visited OP-1 for replacement of the rim but OP-1 refused to do so on the premise that cracks may have developed due to outside impact which is not covered under warranty. The claim was placed before insurance company along with repair estimate dated 17.11.2014 issued by OP-1. The surveyor was appointed who opined that there was no outside impact on the rim. The OPs are avoiding their liabilities to pay the repair charges which tantamounts to deficiency in service. There is manufacturing defect in the rim as rim is one of the key safety equipment of the car. Either the rim has manufacturing defect due to non-testing for safety or same is cracked due to outside impact. In either case, he is not liable to pay for the repair of defective part. A legal notice dated 15.12.2014 was issued to the OPs which was duly replied on 18.12.2014. He has received a communication dated 16.12.2014 from OP-2 about the repudiation of the claim. The repudiation is without any basis. Hence, this complaint.
- OP-1 has filed the reply wherein preliminary objections like maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and no deficiency on the part of OP-1. On merits, it is averred that complainant has not arrayed M/s Lexus Motor Ltd. and Jaguar Land Rover as parties. OP-1 is an authorised dealer of the cars manufactured by JLR. The complainant has brought to the notice of OP-1 about the cracking of rim of the vehicle. The crack on the rim was because of localised impact/irregular maintaining tyre air pressure and not because of any manufacturing defect. GeneralManager of OP-1, has explained entire fact to complainant vide email dated 13.12.2014. The car hasrun up to 16949 kms so there cannot be any manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the complainant.
- OP-2has filed the reply with the averments that Para No.12-15 of the complaint shows that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle so OP-2 is not liable to indemnify the insured for manufacturing defect in the vehicle. M/s Lexus Motors is under an obligation to replace/repair the damaged part of the vehicle. OP-2 has been unnecessarily arrayed as a party as there is mechanical breakdown of the vehicle which is not covered under the policy. The report of the surveyor shows that there is crack on the rim which is not affected in the accident and no physical impact on the vehicle so loss cannot be considered in the assessment. There is no deficiency on the part of OP-2.
- The complainant has filed their rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statements.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW1/1to CW1/10. The exhibits are not put on the documents.
- The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Arindam Bhattacharya, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP1W1/B to OP1W1/C. The documents are not on record.
- The OP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh. VikashGoyal, Manager Legal, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement.
- We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP-2 as no one has appeared on behalf of the OP-1 to address the arguments and perused the entire material on record.
- The complainant is owner of the car in question which was purchased from OP-1 and insured with OP-2. Jaguar Land Rover is manufacturer of the car but manufacturer of the car is not arrayed as a party in the complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant.
- The entire evidence of the file shows that one year warranty of the car is not in dispute.
- It is cleared from the evidence on record that on 17.11.2014 the cracks have developed in the alloy rim of the car and complainant immediately contacted OP-1 but OP-1 after checking the car refused to replace the damaged part of the car on the premise that damage is due to outside impact which is beyond the warranty.
- The matter was reported to OP-2 and surveyor was appointed by OP-2. The report of the surveyor Annexure-9 annexed with the complaintsays that there is no outside impact so claim is not covered under the insurance. The appointment of surveyor and its report is admitted by the complainant.
- The email Annexure-8 attached with the complaint says that OP-1 has informed the complainant that deformation and crack of the rim indicates that road shocks and irregular air pressure in tyres destroyed the rim which does not depend on the kilometres covered by the car. The damage is typically caused by the driving over objects like curves or speed bumps at higher speed.
- The question is whether there is manufacturing defect in the rims of the car or not.
- The complainant has not arrayed manufacturer as a party. The version of the party would have come on record qua this damage but same is missing.
- The manufacturing defect cannot be determined by seeing the cracks on the rim of the car. The complainant should have placed on record the expert opinion or report of mechanical inspection from some reputed agency to show that cracks have developed due to manufacturing defect in the rim. The expert report would have countered the opinion of OP-1 given in Annexure-8 or that of surveyor given in Annexure-9.In the absence of any expert report on record, the version of the complainant cannot be relied upon that there is manufacturing defect in the rim.
- There is no evidence on record that there is manufacturing defect in the rim of the car. The OP-1 cannot be held liable for the cracks developed in the rim as OP-1 is a dealer who has sold the car being manufactured by the manufacturer i.e. Jaguar Land Rover. The said damage isnot covered under the insurance policy so the claim was rightly turned down by OP-2.
- The complainant has failed to bring on record that there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs sothe complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 03.10.2024.
