Delhi

North East

CC/9/2016

Najakat - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s T.R. Shahney Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 09/16

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Najakat S/o Sh. Sharif Khan R/o E-20, St No. 2, 5th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s T.R Shahney Motors Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director/Authorized person Maruti Service Centre, Wazirabad Road, Gokal Puri, Delhi     The New India Insurance Company Through its Manager/Authorized person 1215, 12th Floor, Naurang House, 21,Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001. (Deleted vide order dated 19.02.20)	Opposite Party No.1           Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

08.01.16 22.11.22 09.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having a vehicle bearing no. DL-CK-8660 insured by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 15,320/- as insurance premium for the total insured value of said vehicle at Rs. 3,31,909/- having policy no. 31260031140302069065 valid from 29.10.14 to 28.10.15. The Complainant stated that on 26.09.15 the vehicle of Complainant met with an accident and Complainant lodged an FIR no. 0908/2015 at Police Station, Bagpat, UP. The Complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 about the accident on 28.09.15 and the said vehicle was lying in the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 since 18.10.15. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 took Rs. 5,000/- from Complainant against voucher no. 10180001 dated 18.10.15 for repairing of the vehicle in question. From 18.10.15 Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 many times but the vehicle in question was not repaired till date and the Complainant was also in constant touch with official of Opposite Party No.1 but he also did not give a satisfactory response to Complainant for not repairing the said vehicle. The Complainant made various phone calls and visits to workshop of Opposite Party No.1 but Opposite Party No.1 neither gave satisfactory response to Complainant nor handed over the said vehicle after necessary repairs and the Complainant is ready to pay for repairs even though the said vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant stated that he had made written representation on 05.12.15 by hand as well as speed post to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 but till date Opposite Parties did not give any reply to Complainant. The Complainant stated that he had sent legal notice dated 22.12.15 to Opposite Parties but till date Opposite Parties did not comply with the requisitions of the said legal notice. Complainant had prayed either to handover the vehicle in question after carrying out necessary repairs, in perfect working condition or if the repairs are not possible, to pay the insured value of the vehicle. He has also prayed for    Rs. 7,00,000/- for mental harassment and further prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay future expenses of travelling @ Rs. 1,000/- per day, till the date of handing over the said vehicle after necessary repairs.
2. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 19.03.18 and Opposite Party No.2 filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement that the Complainant has settled the matter with it quo the repair of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,23,378/-. This amount was paid to the Opposite Party No. 1 by Opposite Party No. 2 on 05.04.16. It is also stated that after repair of the vehicle the Complainant has taken delivery and possession of the vehicle in question. It is also stated by Opposite Party No.2 that apart from taking over the possession of the vehicle in question the Complainant has also paid a balance amount of Rs. 8,484/- to the Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that under these circumstances the complaint is not maintainable. However, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 19.02.20.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint. The Complainant has stated that he did not settle the claim with the Opposite Parties as alleged by Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that he had taken the delivery of the vehicle after seeking leave of this Forum. It is stated that his signatures were obtained by Opposite Party No.2 on misrepresentation.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Counsel for Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his vehicle was insured by Opposite Party No.2. His vehicle met with an accident at Bagpat on 26.09.15. Admittedly, on the said date the insurance policy of the vehicle was valid. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties has not carried out the necessary repairs of the vehicle nor settle the claim. As discussed above, the Opposite Party No.2 has stated in its written statement that the matter was settled with the Complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,23,378/- and the said amount was paid to the Opposite Party No.1 on 05.04.16 thereafter the Complainant had taken the possession of the vehicle by paying the balance amount of Rs. 8,484/- to the Opposite Party No.1. The perusal of the file shows that the Opposite Party No.2 put appearance before this Forum on 18.02.16 and the matter was adjourned for 06.04.16. On 06.04.16 it was submitted by the counsel for Opposite Party No.2 that the matter had been settled with the Complainant. Further the proceeding dated 10.05.16 shows that the advocate for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant requires compensation for expenses incurred for hiring taxi. The Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit attested on 06.07.22. In the said affidavit, the Complainant has made false assertion in para no.9 of the affidavit stating therein that Opposite Party No.1 has neither done the repair of the vehicle nor handed over the same to the Complainant. This is clearly a wrong assertion made by the Complainant in his affidavit whereas the earlier proceedings dated 06.04.16 and 10.05.16 shows that the Complainant has already taken the possession of the vehicle and his advocate has stated on 10.05.16 that the Complainant only wants compensation for expenses incurred in hiring taxi. In his affidavit filed in evidence the Complainant has not mentioned the expenses details nor he has specify as to how he is entitled for said compensation. Keeping in view the conduct of the Complainant that he has made false assertions in his affidavit, we are of the opinion that Complainant is not entitled for any compensation.
6. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.  
7. Order announced on 09.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President