Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/733

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kalsi Motors - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 733 of 28.10.2014

Date of Decision            :   15.09.2016

 

Rajesh Kumar son of Sh.Surinder Kumar r/o H.No.8817, St. No.6, New Subhash Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Kalsi Motors, #B-XXI/1, Gandhi Nagar, G.T.Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

2.Hero Motocorp Limited, having its Regional Office at 34 Community Center, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, through its Director/Managing Director.

3.National Insurance Co.Ltd., # DO X, Hero Honda Vertical, 101-106, BMC House, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Kunal Vohra, Advocate    

For OP1                         :         Sh.Vinod Chawla, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.M.S.Jassal, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased one motor cycle of Hero Honda Passion XPRO bearing registration PB-10-EL-9813 from OP1 vide invoice No.10008-02-SINV-1213-3926 dated 26.12.2013. At the time of purchase, OP1 being the authorized agent of OP3 also got insured the vehicle of the complainant through certificate No.39010231136203428098 with validity upto midnight of 25.12.2014. That bike of the complainant met with an accident and stood damaged. Thereafter, complainant took his damaged vehicle to OP1 for its repair and for getting necessary claim from the insurance company. OP1 kept the vehicle of the complainant and issued job card dated 23.8.2014. At that time, OP1 assured the complainant that they will repair the vehicle within 2 days after arrangement of the claim from OP3. After lapse of said period of two days, complainant again approached OP1, but it kept on making false excuses to the effect as if parts of the vehicle are not available. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP1 many times, but every time the matter was procrastinated. After lapse of two months, Ops failed to repair the bike of the complainant and same still lying in the custody of OP1. Every time, Ops lingered on the matter on false pretext of non availability of the parts and non arrangement of the claim from the insurance company. Ops failed to repair the bike of the complainant, despite the fact that legal notice dated 4.10.2014 was served upon the Ops for calling upon them to get the bike     repaired and to pay damages, but to no effect and as such, by pleading deficiency in service, prayer made for directing Ops to get the bike in question repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant after arrangement of the claim from OP3. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because of suppression of material facts; complainant estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct; complainant has no cause of action and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. Rather, it is claimed that the complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law for humiliating and harassing OP1. Complainant himself claims as if the vehicle is covered by the validity of insurance period.                    Besides, complainant claimed for service of vehicle free of cost because of the same being covered under the insurance scheme. Complainant was called upon to show the insurance papers, but he claimed as if those were not readily available with him and he will provide the same shortly. Even OP1 disclosed the complainant that parts of the vehicle, which are required to be changed, are not readily available and the same will be arranged from OP2, on which, the complainant called upon OP1 for arrangement of the said motor parts by assuring that he will provide the requisite insurance papers. On representations and asking of the complainant, OP1 raised purchase order dated 29.08.2014 with OP2 for the purchase of the required motor parts. Again on 25.9.2014, OP1 sent another email to OP2 for supply of the above said motor parts and those were received by OP1 through courier on 22.10.2014. Thereafter, the complainant was telephonically informed several times regarding the receipt of the motor parts (to be replaced in the vehicle of the complainant) from OP2. Complainant was called upon to submit the requisite insurance documents, but complainant did not respond, despite several calls and reminders. So being constrained, OP1 sent written letter dated 12.12.2014 to the complainant through registered A.D. requesting him for supply of the insurance papers/documents, so that required repair may be carried out. Thereafter, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction by executing satisfactory note on 30.12.2014. This complaint alleged to be frivolous one. As the vehicle of the complainant remained parked with OP1 for long period and as such, OP1 liable to claim parking charges at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for the period, for which, the vehicle remained parked with OP1. It is claimed that the complainant is not a consumer. Factum qua purchase of the motor cycle admitted, but by claiming that insurance was arranged by the complainant at his own level. Op1 has no role to play in insurance of the vehicle in question. Admittedly, the bike of the complainant met with an accident, but it is denied that the complainant has brought his vehicle for repair to OP1. Complainant himself claimed that his vehicle is within insurance validity and he claimed for service of the vehicle free of cost, but complainant despite being asked, did not show the insurance papers.

3.                OP2 in the written statement claimed as if complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law. It is claimed that the complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and as such, complaint against OP2 not maintainable, particularly when manufacturing defect even not alleged. Legal relation between OP1 and OP2 is purely on Principal to Principal basis. Sale of the motor cycle by OP1 as dealer to complainant is not denied. Each and every other averment of the complaint either denied for want of knowledge or otherwise.

4.                In separate written statement filed by OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint barred in view of section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint against OP3 is not maintainable. Admittedly, the complainant got insurance policy bearing certificate No.39010231136203428098 for the period from 26.12.2013 to 25.12.2014 of vehicle Hero Honda Passion from OP3. Complainant lodged the claim on 18.12.2014 with OP3 qua damage to the insured vehicle in question. That damage took place on 15.12.2014. OP3 appointed Sh.Harjinder Singh as surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the loss at Rs.14,300/-. OP3 repaired the alleged motor cycle and thereafter, surveyor and loss assessor again inspected the vehicle after repair and submitted report dated 5.1.2015. After receipt of report of Sh.Harjinder Singh, OP3 paid Rs.14,300/- on 7.1.2015 through NEFT to OP1 and now nothing remains due against OP3. So, complaint filed against OP3 alleged to be false.

5.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1/A of Sh.Gulshan Kumar, Manager Customer Care of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and then closed the evidence.

7.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Abhay Kumar R Muley, Authorized Signatory of oP2 and then closed the evidence.

8.                Counsel for OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA3 of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Senior Branch Manager along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and then closed the evidence.

9.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties except OP2. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

10.               It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that though the motor cycle in question was insured with OP3 through OP1, but despite that the claim for insurance in respect of damage to the motor cycle in question has not been paid. Those submissions advanced by the counsel for the complainant strongly opposed by contending that OP3 has already paid the repair charges to OP1 and satisfaction note Ex.R10 has been submitted by the complainant on job card itself and as such, complaint filed by suppressing the material facts. Certainly after going through job card Ex.R10 dated         29.8.2014, it is made out that vehicle received by the complainant Sh.Rajesh Kumar after recording satisfaction. If the vehicle has been received back by the complainant by record of satisfaction note on job card Ex.R10, then           certainly allegations of the complaint are false that the vehicle has not been returned so far. Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 are the documents produced to show that the motor cycle in question was purchased and registered in the name of the complainant and the same was insured with OP3 during the period from 26.12.2013 to midnight of 25.12.2014. So, factum of insurance of the vehicle with OP3 is certainly proved.

11.              OP1 places purchase order through Ex.R3 with OP2 and thereafter, sent reminder Ex.R4 for fetching the required spare parts. Those spare parts received through invoice Ex.R5 of date 29.5.2014 and as such, certainly deficiency in service on part of OP1 does not remain. Rather, contents of written reply are correct that OP1 placed order for purchase of the required spare parts with OP2. Manufacturing defect in the bike in question not alleged and as such, OP2 has been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation.

12.              Through Ex.R7 and Ex.R8, complainant was informed that requisite spare parts have already been received from Gurgaon and as such, complainant should submit the insurance papers, so that process of insurance claim may be started. These documents Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 are of date 12.12.2014 and as such, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 has force that despite issue of reminder to the complainant to produce the insurance documents, complainant did not submit the same and that is why the process for insurance claim could not be completed at earliest. For this fault on the part of complainant, deficiency in service to OP1 cannot be attributed.

13.                 Ex.R1(submitted by OP3) is the report of appointed surveyor and loss assessor Sh.Harjinder Singh. Same establishes that OP3 after lodging of claim, appointed surveyor, who submitted report on 30.12.2014 to the effect that amount of Rs.14,300/- alone payable on account of damage to the motor cycle in question. In pursuance of this report, claim for Rs.14,300/- was approved in favour of OP1 through Ex.R2 dated 6.1.2015. As the insurance documents were not submitted by the complainant till December, 2014 and as such, there is no delay in grant of approval on 6.1.2015 through Ex.R2. After getting of this approval, the amount was disbursed to OP1 by OP3 and that is why, the complainant was able to get back his motor cycle by recording satisfaction note on job card Ex.R10             and as such, virtually claim of the complainant has been satisfied and whatever delay occurred, the same was due to fault on the part of the complainant in not submitting the insurance documents, despite demand.

14.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, compliant dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

15.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                    (Vinod Bala)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                            President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.09.2016

Gobind Sharma.