Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 against the opposite party on the allegations that he is doctor by profession and at present posted at Civil Hospital at Tarn Taran. The complainant purchased a Santro Car bearing R.C. No. PB02-BJ-5901 from opposite party No. 1 in the year 2010. The complainant had purchased the above vehicle for him and his family members use and comfort. At the time of purchase of the above said vehicle, the same was got insured from the insurance company through opposite party No. 1. Last insurance policy/ cover note No. 284831 for period 16.6.2016 to 15.6.2017 on payment of premium of Rs. 5,712/-.  The insurance cover was issued by the opposite party officials camp in the office of opposite party No.1. This insurance policy was with cashless facility. Unfortunately, the above said vehicle met with an accident and the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party on 21.2.2017 in their workshop because the insurance cover was with an accident and the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party on 21.2.2017 in their workshop because the insurance cover was with cashless facility and opposite party No. 1 took delivery of the vehicle with assurance that they will inform the opposite party No. 2 to get the loss assessed and complete the job work of accidental parts within a week time. The opposite party No. 1 got the loss assessed from opposite party No. 2 and completed the work and made roughly bill of Rs. 14,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 workshop incharge also insisted to get the service of the vehicle from them and on their asking the complainant also got service work of the vehicle from them for which they charged Rs. 14,048/- from the complainant and issued bill / invoice. The complete repair work of the vehicle was completed on 5.3.2017 by the opposite party but they had not delivered the vehicle to the complainant on plea to make payment of repair charges covered under insurance policy inspite of the fact that the opposite party by misrepresentation got a blank cancelled cheque from the complainant. The complainant was planning to buy new car after selling his car but could not do so due to delay of delivery of the car by the opposite party No. 1 and in the meantime the Hon’ble Supreme Court banned the sale of G-3 emission vehicle which has resulted in huge financial loss to the complainant as he had a customer in hand for purchase of the said car at a good market price. The complainant has well maintained the vehicle and is used by him for his own use and for the use of his family members and it is necessity of life for complainant but the opposite party No. 1 has illegally and unlawfully detained the car with them and is further causing mental tension besides financial loss because the complainant use to hire car/ taxi for his and his family traveling requirements.  The complainant also approached to the officials opposite party deputed at their camp office in the business premises of the opposite party No. 1 to take delivery of the vehicle and then lodged claim with the opposite party No. 2 for reimbursement. This is totally unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to change of government policy now there is no customer to buy the vehicle of the complainant and it became Zero-value vehicle while before the change of government policy there was customer to purchase the said vehicle at Rs. 1,50,000/-. As such, the complainant has suffered the loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- and further sent about Rs. 40,000/- on hiring of vehicle to meet with his traveling requirements. The value and utility of the said vehicle is decreasing further because of parking of vehicle in the workshop without use. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

(a)     The opposite party No. 1 be directed to deliver the above vehicle RC No. PB02-BJ-5901 Santro Car immediately to the complainant without payment and get the claim directly from the opposite party No. 2.

(b)     The opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- of loss of value of the vehicle + Rs. 40,000/- financial loss to hire vehicle for the last one month + Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant from the hands of opposite parries for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

(c)      The litigation expenses of present complaint as assessed by this commission fit and just be also granted in favour of complainant. 

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The present complaint has been filed by complainant to get undue advantage from the opposite party No. 1 and to cause harm the reputation of the opposite party No. 1. There is no deficiency in service as alleged in the present complaint by the opposite party No.1. It is the complainant who has not earlier paid the balance repair cost of the car as per invoice dated 16.3.2017 issued by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Out of the total invoice/ repair bill of accidental repair, amount of Rs. 14,035/- the opposite party No. 2 has paid an amount of Rs.7,500/- to the opposite party No. 1 on 29.3.2017 and there remain outstanding balance amount of Rs. 6,530/- which was to be paid by the complainant to make payment to the opposite party No. 1 but the complainant was avoiding to make payment to the opposite party No.1 on pretext that it is the opposite party No. 2 insurance company who will also pay the balance repair cost to the opposite party No. 1, as such, there remained outstanding balance amount of Rs. 6,530/- which was legally demanding by the opposite party No. 1 from the complainant. The delay in making payment of the invoice was upon the complainant and due to adamant behavior of the complainant and due to his own wrongs, the opposite party No. 1 did not hand over the car to the complainant and when the complainant has deposited the balance amount to the opposite party No. 1 after filing the present false complaint, then immediately, opposite party No. 1 handed over the car of the complainant to him. The complainant is guilty for his own acts and conducts. It is the complainant who had not earlier settled the claim with the opposite party No. 1. Due to pendency of the balance amount, car of the complainant remained with the opposite arty No. 1 and with malafide intention on the basis of false and frivolous facts, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1 as alleged in the present complaint.  On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant had purchased Santro Car from the opposite party No. 1 in the year 2010 and at the time of purchase of car the same was got insured from the insurance company through opposite party No. 1. Vehicle/ car of the complainant was brought to service center of the opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, job card was issued regarding accidental repair of the car of the complainant and besides this, other work was also to be carried and as such, repair job card was also got prepared as per instructions and consent of the complainant and accordingly as per job cards, repair work was carried out by the opposite party No. 1 and thereafter, invoice dated 16.3.2017 was issued for recovery of amount of Rs. 14,035/- . Being cashless policy, information was duly sent by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 and accordingly surveyor has visited the spot and thereafter repair work was carried out by the complainant. After issuance of bill dated 16.3.2017, copy of same was forwarded  to the opposite party No. 2 and to the complainant for its payment and accordingly, opposite party No. 2 has deposited amount of Rs,. 7,500/- as full and final payment on 29.3.2017 to the opposite party No. 1 and there remained balance amount of Rs. 6,530/- which was to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 1 but the complainant refused to pay balance amount to the opposite party No. 1 and as such, his car was not released by the opposite party No.1 and when the complainant has deposited the balance amount of invoice repair to the opposite party No. 1, car was immediately handed over to the complainant. Repair of car was done on 5.3.2017 and it is admitted that opposite party no. 1 had not delivered the car to the complainant on the ground that repair amount was not received by the opposite party No.1. and thereafter, as per request of opposite party No. 2, invoice was got prepared and submitted to the complainant and opposite party No.2. There is no intentionally delay in delivery of the car to the complainant. Due to non-payment of the invoice, car was not handed over to the complainant by the opposite party No.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has banned for sale of G-3 emission new vehicle in the market but there is no bar to sale the old vehicle in the market. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has no relevancy with the facts of the present case. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party No. 2 has appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has not come to the forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this commission. The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party No.2 because the opposite party No. 2 has not caused any deficiency in service regarding the settlement of the claim of the complainant. After receiving the information from the complainant regarding the loss to the said car, the opposite party had immediately deputed its surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss to the said vehicle and the said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,669/- and the replying opposite party has immediately made the payment  of Rs. 7,500/- to the Novelty Hyundai on 28.3.2017, as such, the opposite party No. 2 has not committed any deficiency in service while settling the claim of the complainant as  such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No. 2 on this ground only. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5        Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, copy of motor vehicle cover note Ex. C-1, copy of repair order Ex. C-2,. Copy of repair order Ex. C-3, Copy of the cash invoice dated 11.3.2017 Ex. C-4, copy of RC Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria Ex. OP1/1, copy of resolution Ex. OP1/2, copy of general power of attorney Ex. OP1/3, copy of Job Card No. 1831 Ex. OP1/4, Copy of Job Card No. 1675 Ex. O1/5, Copy of invoice dated 11.3.2017 Ex. OP1/6, copy of invoice dated 16.3.2017 Ex. OP1/7 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. SK Sharma Divisional Manager Ex. OP2/1, Copy of payment voucher  Ex. OP2/2, copy of the investigation receipt Ex. OP2/3, copy of payment voucher Ex. OP2/4, copyp of intimation letter Ex. OP2/5.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

7                  From the combined and harmonious reading of pleading and documents placed on record is going to prove that a Santro car bearing No. PB02-BJ-5901 of the complainant met with an accident and the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party on 21.2.2017. The said vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party No. 2 for the period of 16.6.2016 to 15.6.2017. The repair work of the said vehicle was completed on 5.3.2017 but the said vehicle was not delivered to the complainant on that very date.  From the perusal of the written version filed by the opposite party No. 1 clearly states that the vehicle of the complainant was handed over to the opposite party No. 1 on 21.2.2017 and admittedly the repair work of the said car was completed on 5.3.2017. However, the opposite party No. 1 issued invoice on 16.3.2017 Ex. OP1/7. The opposite party No. 1 referred the case to the opposite party No. 2 for the settlement of accidental claim. The surveyor of opposite party No. 2 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 7,669/- and the said amount was paid by the opposite party No. 2 to the opposite party No. 1 on 28.3.2017. The plea of the complainant is that as the said vehicle was repaired on 5.3.2017 and the opposite party No. 1 has not delivered the vehicle on the said date and there is delay of 11 days. The complainant alleged that in the during said period the Hon’ble Supreme Court banned the sale of G-III emission vehicle which has resulted in huge financial loss to the complainant as he had a customer in hand for purchase of the said car at a good market price. As such, he has suffered huge loss due to the delay in delivering the car on 5.4.2017. However, the complainant has not placed on record any document which shows that the complainant has suffered a loss as alleged by complainant. Further the complainant has also alleged that besides this financial loss he was forced to hire the taxi for him as well as his family members and also alleged that the act of opposite party No. 1 caused mental tension besides financial loss. From the perusal of record it clearly shows that the vehicle was repaired on 5.3.2017, however, the said vehicle was delivered on 28.3.2017 i.e. after the delay of some days. The plea taken by the opposite party No. 1 that the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant within time as the claim was referred to the opposite party No. 2 for indemnify the loss and opposite party No. 2 made the payment of Rs. 7,669/- on 28.3.2017 and the balance payment was not paid by the complainant within the time as such, the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant and as and when he paid the remaining amount to the opposite party No. 1 the said vehicle was released. Since the vehicle was handed over to the opposite party No. 1 on 21.2.2017 and the same was repaired on 5.3.2017, the opposite party No. 1 issued invoice on 16.3.2017 which clearly shows that there is delay in issuing the invoice, the opposite party No. 1 must have issued the invoice on 21.2.2017,  the day, when the opposite party No. 1 received the vehicle and it is the duty of the opposite party No. 1 to depute the surveyor immediately after the receiving the vehicle in their workshop. As such, there is delay on the part of the opposite party No. 1, it amounts to deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant has not placed on record that how he has been effected by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the complainant has not placed on record any traveling receipts of taxi which were allegedly hired by him. As such, the complainant is only entitled for mental harassment as well as litigation expenses.

8        In view of foregoing discussion we partly allow the present complainant and opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. Seven Thousand only) as compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs. 3,500/-  (Rs. Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as litigation

expenses. The present complaint against the opposite party No. 2 is dismissed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order within one month from the date or receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of complaint till its realization.  Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

28.7.2022