Haryana

Ambala

CC/98/2017

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt LTd - Opp.Party(s)

10 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                  Complaint No. 98 of 2017

                                                                  Date of instt:  30.03.2017

                                                                  Date of decision:10.05.2018

                                                

Naveen Kumar (30) son of Shri Rajinder Kumar resident of village & Post Office Fatehpur Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                ...Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Kishiv Motors Pvt. Ltd. 9 KM Stone village Khuddi, Ambala  Jagadhari Road Ambala Cantt. through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorities signatory.
2. Honda Cars India Ltd.  Plot No.A-1 Surajpur Kasana Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautambudh Nagar (UP) through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorities signatory.
3. Frontier Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. 01A, Ground Floor Vipul Trade Centre, Sector-48, Sohana Road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Proprietor/ Partner/Authorities Signatory.
4. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Ist Floor, above OBC Bank, Arya Chowk, Ambala City through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorities signatory.

                                                                             …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.      

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                    

 

Present: -    Sh.Virender Partap, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.S.R.Bansal, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh.Manish Kashyap, Adv. for OP No.2.

                   Reply of Op No.3 received through post.

                   Sh.Dev Batra, Adv. for OP No.4.

 

ORDER

 

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Car make Amaze 1.5 S MT (i-DTEC) bearing Engine No.N15A1400413 and Chesis No.MAKDF25ABGN200215 from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.7,43,900/- and the vehicle was insured from bumper to bumper with OP No.4 vide policy No.3535023117300000704 having validity from 12.04.2016 to 11.04.2017. On 20.06.2016 the complainant had gone to Delhi where due to heavy rain the roads were full of water and the car went off on the road. The complainant observed that water had entered in the engine of the car, therefore, he contacted OP No.1 who advised to take the car to Op No.3. The complainant after towed the car to Op No.3 where it demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- in advance. On the assurance of Op No.1 that the amount would be refunded the complainant paid the said amount. On 24.06.2016 the complainant approached the Op No.3 who demanded total amount of Rs.49002/- and asked that the delivery of the car would be made only after making a payment of Rs.39002/- being balance amount.  The complainant immediately contacted OP No.1 who thereafter deputed official of Op No.4 which asked him to make the payment as it would be reimbursed shortly.  The complainant made the payment to the Op No.3 and requested the Op No.4 to make the payment of Rs.49000/- qua the insured vehicle and further got served legal notice upon the OPs but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and locus standi etc. The Op No.1 has nothing to do with the complaint as the vehicle was repaired by Op No.3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                             Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no defect in the vehicle, therefore no liability can be fastened upon it. The car experienced severe problems in it engine due to hydro lock as it was driven in deep water logged area and it all happened due to negligence of the complainant. The presence of a liquid in the engine cylinder during compression had a  deterrent effect on the working of an engine as generally the presence of a liquid in the engine cylinder during the compression generates high cylinder pressure, it not only damages piston, crankshafts, cylinder heads and engine blocks as well.  The vehicle was carrying warranty for a period of 24 months or 1,00,000 Kms whichever is earlier from the date of sale. The owner’s manual specifically cautions the owner under the head driving in bed weather, do not drive on the road where water is deep as driving through the deep water will cause damage to the engine and vehicle would break down.  No such complaint was ever reported by the complainant while driving the vehicle for almost 2400 Kms and the present problem had occurred for driving the car in deep water logged area. The insurance company has not repudiated any part of his claim on the ground that the damage was due to some defect in the car and same is under warranty provided by Op No.2 hence not covered under insurance policy.  The relationship between Op No.2, Op No.1 and 3 is on principal to principal basis. The Op No. and 3 are not the agent of Op No.2 and they are independently in providing after sale services such as providing insurance cover or carrying out accidental repairs or even periodical maintenance service. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.3 in its reply, received through post, has taken specific plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint.  The complainant had brought the vehicle to the service centre on 20.06.2016 at 5.43 PM as there was damage due to entry of water in the engine of the vehicle. After complete repairs of the damaged vehicle, bill for a sum of Rs.49002/- was raised and the complainant had taken the delivery of the car after making the payment upto his entire satisfaction.  The complainant himself and through the agent of insurance company had informed that the said damage does not cover under the insurance policy. The Op No.3 specifically denied the other allegations and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                             Op No.4 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had filed the bill for refund of Rs.49002/- which was received by Op No.3 on account of cost of repair of the damaged car on 20.06.2016 due to entry of water in the engine. No alleged loss was ever intimated/reported, no claim was made to be registered, no spot survey, no investigation, no survey report, no final inspection, no photographs of alleged vehicle at any stage of aforesaid process, no submission of bills and just all of a sudden the Op No.4 has been made as a party in the present complaint, therefore, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint from his act and conduct. The complainant is very negligent in driving the vehicle as earlier three claims against the damaged insured vehicle were reported i.e. date of loss 11.05.2016, 01.01.2017, 22.01.2017 & all these reported claims after completing all process were duly paid and no reported claim was pending qua the vehicle in question, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. All the registered claims are to follow process since day one of alleged loss and finally the claims are to be seen as per terms and conditions of the policy. The damage to the engine of the vehicle was due to entry of water in the engine and the same was not covered under standard warranty & guarantee & the same was not even payable by insurance company as confirmed to them by the complainant himself as mentioned by Op No.3 in its reply.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.4. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA/Z, Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

3.                          We have heard counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                          The complainant had purchased the vehicle from Op no.1 and the same was insured with Op No.4 vide policy Annexure C1 having validity from 12.04.2016 to 11.04.2017. It is proved on the case file that the complainant had firstly claimed the amount Rs.13367/- qua the claim dated 11.05.2016 vide Annexure R4 which was duly paid and further secondly claimed the amount Rs.24224/- vide Annexure R5 and the amount was also paid and on third occasion he claimed claim on dated 22.01.2017 for Rs.4126/- which was settled and paid vide Annexure R6.

5.                Now, question arises whether the complainant is entitled for the claimed amount Rs.49002/- qua the accident dated 20.06.2016. It is not disputed that car in question was damaged due to heavy rain and it become off on the road. It was observed by the complainant rainy water enter in the engine of the car and he repaired the car from the Honda Car agency i.e. OP No.3 and he paid Rs.49002/- as repair charges but the OP No.4 has not paid the above said amount despite demanding the amount and also give the notices to the OPs to pay the above said amount.

6.                          On the other hand, insurance company has taken the plea that no alleged loss was ever intimated and no claim was made to be registered so no spot survey, no investigation, no survey report, no final inspection, no photographs of alleged vehicle at any stage of aforesaid process, no submission of bills have been done and just all of a sudden the Op No.4 has been made as a party in the present complaint. The complainant has not produced any document from which we can observe that he has given any intimation to the insurance company qua the alleged accident and no any document has been submitted for claim to the insurance company and no such document has also been placed on the file to show that the claim was submitted to the insurance company. Since no claim has been lodged by the complainant with the insurance company how the insurance company can be blamed for not paying any claim amount whenever he has taken the three claims prior to this accident and after the present accident, therefore how the insurance company can be presumed that the claim will not be honoured.

7.                          Keeping in view the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 and even the Op No.3 had rightly charged the amount from the complainant for repair work and Op No.1 & 2 have no role to play in the subject matter. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint against all the OPs leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

 

Announced on: 10.05.2018                                                (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

                                                           

 

                                                                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                     MEMBER

 

 

                                                           

                                                                           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                     MEMBER