Date of Filing : 31.03.2008
Date of Order : 19.12.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.222/2008
TUESDAY THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
Mrs. Santa Sridharan,
W/o. Sridharan,
No.1/19, 1st Main Road,
I Block, Anna Nagar,
Chennai 600 040. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. M/s. Honda,
Rep. by its Manager,
T.V.S. Sundaram Motors,
No.180, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The Area Manager,
Customer Services,
ICICI Lombord,
General Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st and IInd Floor,
No.140, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034. ..Opposite parties.
Counsel for Complainant : M/s.D. Jawahar
Counsel for opposite party-1 : M/s.M.R.Raghavan
Counsel for opposite party-2 : M/s. Micheal Marie Antony
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA, :: MEMBER-I
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party
1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant submit that
. The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein
4. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked. Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The points for the consideration is:
Admittedly the complainant purchased Honda City ZXI.5 0X1 MT Car A Alabaster Silver colour vehicle from the 1st opposite party for a sale price of Rs.7,34,570/- as per Ex.A1 availing loan from ICICI Bank is not disputed by opposite parties. The complainant contended that on 9.9.2007 when the complainant and her family want to Thirupathi and while returning back to Chennai the vehicle was suddenly stopped without any movement on the road. Immediately the complainant intimated the fact to the 1st opposite party and their men came and attended the fault and the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance and thereafter the vehicle was taken to their work shop and there after no response or intimation regarding the progress in rectify the defects.
The complainant further contended that without due concurrence and intimation from the complainant, all of a sudden after long time the 1st opposite party stated that they have attended the mechanical fault of the vehicle and thereby the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,099/- less advance of Rs.10,000/-. Hence the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 9.1.2008 and 12.2.2008 i.e. Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 which was duly acknowledged by the opposite party. Later the 1st opposite party sent a reply dated nil the complainant promised to take delivery of car by ………… the bill of Rs.1,64,099/- deducting advance amount of Rs.10,000/- which was denied by the complainant. But on a careful perusal of the documents filed by the opposite party it is seen that they had not produced any bill for the alleged repair of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.1,64,099/-. Hence the complainant is not liable to pay such huge amount.
Per contra the 1st opposite party contended that the husband of the complainant brought the vehicle to the 1st opposite party for repairs. On inspection it was noticed that the oil sump in the vehicle was damaged due to external impact and consequently oil leaked out from the engine oil sump. As the vehicle was driven continuously with less or no oil the engine suffered oil starvation and the engine ceased and he was informed the complete estimate value for repairs amounting Rs.1,64,650/- and prepared due estimation for repairs and issued job sheet vide Ex.A… and the complainant husband Mr.Sritharan was informed to take delivery of the car on completion of repair and paid and advance of Rs.10,000/- though they wanted to remit 50% advance towards repair cost and the repair was completed on 17.9.2007 and Mr.Sritharan was informed over phone to take delivery of the car and to remit the balance amount. But the 1st opposite party failed to produce any profoma invoice, estimate bill, details of spare parts and bill or repairs bill before this Forum. Moreover the 1st opposite party had not denied the contention of the complainant that it is a manufacturing defect and it is well within the warranty period. The 1st opposite party had not proved through documents what are the repairs carried out for such huge sum of Rs.1,64,099/-. As such failure on the part of the 1st opposite party to give the repair bill to the huge amount of Rs.1,64,099/- is a clear deficiency in service.
The 2nd opposite party who is an insurance company contended that the complainant neither intimated the alleged occurrence on 9.9.2007 nor any claim form was given. From the pleadings of the complainant it is understood that the vehicle had alleged to have developed some problems which can be attributed either to the bad maintenance or some manufacturing defects. As per the terms and conditions of the policy it is not opened to the complainant to seek any indemnity other than the damage caused due to an accident or any other peril covered under the policy. As such they are not liable to pay any compensation or replacement of a new vehicle is maintainable against them. However it is seen through Ex.A.. that the complainant had made a claim towards the damages from the 2nd opposite party and it was repudiated by them stating the reason as engine failure.
Thought the 1st opposite party is demanding a sum of Rs.1,64,099/- without producing the proper repair bills committed deficiency of service, is proved through the job card that the chassis damaged. Therefore it is clear that damages caused to the vehicle to some extent. However since the manufacturing defect is not proved by the complainant through an expert opinion the complainant is not entitled for replacement of a new car.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case this forum is of the considered view that the 1st opposite party shall delivery the car to the complainant immediately without making a claim since the vehicle is covered under warranty period with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- and the points are answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The 1st opposite party shall delivery the car to the complainant immediately without making a claims since the vehicle is covered under warranty period with a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. No order as against the 2nd opposite party.
The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.
Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5th day of December 2017.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainants’ side documents:
Opposite parties’ side documents:
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
