The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant stated in his plaint that he is the owner of one XUV 500 motor vehicle bearing Registration No. HP 62 3886 and the said motor vehicle is an insured vehicle with the Proforma Opposite Party No. 2 bearing Policy No. 31030031210100339582 for the insured period between 22.01.2022 to 21.01.2023 and on 24.01.2022 when the Complainant was returned from his office and was parking the vehicle in the open parking space, some children playing football suddenly came in front of the vehicle of the Complainant and in an attempt to save the lives of the children, the Complainant moved carefully the car in the other direction and for this the Complainant met with an accident causing damaged to the motor vehicle.
The complainant also stated in his plaint that the locality contacted the helpline no. of the insurance company wherefrom the Complainant was made known about the recommend workshop of the Proforma O.P. No. 1. The Complainant was made known that the workshop was under O.P Nos. 1 and 2 which had a pan India presence and after going through the contents in website of the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 the Complainant was confident that the workshop was managed by professionals.
The complainant also stated in his plaint that he also came across several newspapers, magazines, social media platform and hoardings wherein the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 had advertised their services claiming themselves to be “India’s largest chain of multi-brand car workshop………”. In the said website, it was also described its service as Transparent, Affordable, State of the Art equipment, Skilled Man power, etc., among other advantages. He accordingly made arrangements to send the motor vehicle to the said workshop on 24.01.2022 where the said motor vehicle was accepted by the workshop for repair and after examining the motor vehicle, the Complainant was provided with and estimate for parts and labour.
The complainant also stated in his plaint that on 27.01.2022 he was instructed by the Proforma O.P No. 1 raise a formal claim by addressing a letter to the insurance company and the same was complied by the Complainant. Thereafter another estimate was raised for the Complainant’s Motor Vehicle that indicate a total estimate of Rs. 1,47,177/- out of which a proportionate amount was to be borne by the insurance company. The Complainant also added that the insurance policy availed was a cashless policy but the Complainant was compelled to pay and amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the workshop on 15.02.2022 as an advance stating that repair will not commence until the amount was paid. That even after receiving the vehicle of the Complainant, no steps was taken by the workshop for reasons best known to them and only on 15.02.2022 after the Complainant transferred the advance amount to the workshop the Complainant’s motor vehicle.
The complainant also stated in his plaint that he was promised that the vehicle would be ready after repair within one month after which the Complainant would be called for a test drive and the vehicle would be released thereafter. Accordingly, the Complainant was informed by the workshop on 15.03.2022 that the motor vehicle of the Complainant was repaired and the Complainant was asked to visit the workshop for a test drive. The Complainant visited the workshop on 16.03.2022 and took a test drive of the car and he was highly dissatisfied with the service provided and the extent and nature of repairs undertaken by the workshop. All the defects were specifically and categorically communicated to the workshop in person and through messages on Whatsapp messenger and the record of the same area available with the Complainant.
Subsequently, he was assured remedial actions and timely processing of the insurance claim of the Complainant.
The complainant also stated in his plaint that he again visited the workshop after 10 days on 26.03.2022 and was again dissatisfied and found the vehicle in an unattended condition. He raised strong objection to the agents in the workshop about the subsequent damages caused to the protective Teflon coating of the Complainant’s vehicle but the Complainant was given a nonchalant and ignorant reply stating that the Complainant’s vehicle would only be attended at the time of delivery and till then it will continue to rot in sun dust which is not of the workshop. He enquired with the workshop, against agents informed the Complainant that the vehicle was ready and could be released from their end. He was again called for a test ride on 28.03.2022 after the repair. After the test drive on 16.03.2022 the Complainant known that the service was extremely poor.
The complainants pray as follows: -
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh.) only for publishing false and misleading advertisement I public domain to be paid to such account as the Ld. Commission directs.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) only for repairing damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant due to negligence and deficiency on the part of the O.P.s.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) only to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and trauma.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only towards damages for false and misleading advertisement by the O.P. No. 1.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only towards the cost accured by the complainant for availing alternate transportation as the vehicle of the complainant was kept in custody of the workshop for more than 4 (Four) months.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay Rs 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as litigation expenses as the complainant has to pay for the Advocate’s fee and other legal expenses.
- To pass any order/ orders or reliefs to which Your Honour may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
- Annexure A: Photocopy of the Insurance Policy bearing Policy No. 31030031210100339582 for the insured period between 22.01.2022 to 21.01.2023.
- Annexure B: Photocopies and Screenshots of several advertisements in the internet and social media uploaded by My TVS and its franchises across India and in their official website.
- Annexure C: Photocopies of Motor Insurance Claim Form and Claim Intimation Letters dated 27.01.2022 filled by the complainant.
- Annexure D: Photocopies of estimate provided by the service centre on 24.01.2022 and 27.01.2022.
- Annexure E: Photocopy of the payment of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only made by the complainant to the service centre to initiate the service on 15.02.2022.
- Annexure F: Photocopy of the Satisfaction Note signed by the complainant “Car received with objection” dated 21.06.2022.
- Annexure G: Photocopy of Screenshots of Chats between complainant and agent of My TVS.
- Annexure H: Photocopy of Final Bill provided to the complainant dated 14.05.2022.
- Annexure I: Photocopy of Legal Notice dated 20.06.2022.
- Annexure J: Photocopy of 2nd Legal Notice dated 02.08.2022.
Regarding this instant case, the Opposite Party (O.P.) – 1. My TVS (a unit of TVS Automobile Solution Private Limited) having its registered address at No. 10, Jawahar Road, P.O. Chokkikulam, P.S. Tallakulam, Dist. Madurai- 625002, CIN : U34100TN2009PTC071439, O.P No. 2. My TVS (a unit of TVS Automobile Solution Private Limited) having its registered address at 5th Floor, Unit No. 504, Jai Antariksha, Makwana Road, Marol Naka Andheri East, Mumbai- 400059, CIN : U34100TN2009PTC071439, did not turn up before this Commission and the case runs ex- parte against O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No.2.
The Proforma O.P. No. 2, New India Assurance Company Limited, contested the case by filing W.V. and in the W.V the Proforma O.P. No. 2 stated that the claim is bad for mis-joinder of parties and the insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-62-3886 is not proper and necessary party. The Proforma O.P. No. 2 also stated in his W.V. that it is a close proximity claim, i.e., the date of insurance is from 22.01.2022 and the date of accident alleged to have been taken place 24.01.2022 and thus the Proforma O.P. No.2 denies all about the accident alleged to have been taken place on 24.01.2022 and for this reason the Proforma O.P. No. 2 shall not be liable to pay any compensation.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by both parties. We are also heard arguments advanced by both the complainant and Proforma O.P. No.2 in full length.
It is very much clear from the complaint of the complainant that the car Mahindra XUV500 motor vehicle met with an accident on 24/01/2022 and after seeing an advertisement of My TVS (a unit of TVS Automobile Solution Private Limited) the said vehicle was handed over to the SGMS Automobiles who are under the franchise of My TVS (a unit of TVS Automobile Solution Private Limited) and the complainant finally paid Rs. 1,05,286/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eight Six) only with full and final settlement and thus the complainant is a very much consumer in this case.
In this case, as per the complaint, the address of the complainant and the address of the O.P.s beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant in his claim petition claimed that at the time of occurrence the complainant resided within the jurisdiction of the Commission and the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of this Commission but the complainant did not produce any evidence and documents in support of his claim. The complainant also not produced any expert opinion regarding the dispute related with the repairing of his vehicle.
In this case, after the accident the complainant neither lodged any F.I.R. or G.D. entry about the alleged accident before the investigation agency and nor produced any evidence to prove the accident. So, the alleged accident as stated in the claim petition is doubtful and it is also not clear that the complainant had an insurance policy covering the period from 22/01/2022 to 21/01/2023 and the accident occurred on 24/01/2022. Hence, the alleged accident is very much doubtful.
The complainant could not able to differentiate the two points, i.e., (i) whether is there any misleading advertisement and (ii) is there any deficiency in service in the part of repairing issue. The complainant claimed that the O.P. company has made audio, visual publication, representation, endorsement in print, electronic media, social media, internet and website about their services but when it was availed in reality, the complainant realized that the O.P. No.1 has falsely describe to mislead the complainant in same manner the O.P. No.1 mislead the general public. In support of this the complainant filed two or three pages of photocopies of advertisement sheets but the complainant did not file the total copy of advertisement sheet and disclaimer portion of the advertisement which is an essential part of this case. Hence, it is not possible to the Commission to conclude this point without examining the witness and evidence in details. But in this case, the complainant only filed two or three pages of advertisement paper and it should be remembered here that it is a summary procedure trial. This Commission holds that without analyzing of all the points in detail it cannot be determined the misleading advertisement on the basis of two or three pages of photocopies of advertisement papers.
In this instant case, this Commission holds that the evidence produced by the complainant is not sufficient to prove the misleading of advertisement in the part of O.P. No.1 and 2. The complainant failed to prove his case and thus case is dismissed without cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 04/2023 is dismissed in the point of jurisdiction and on merit against the O.P.s without cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
