Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1497

Ramesh Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIAC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjit Sharma

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

First Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.1497 of 2011 

 

                                              Date of institution: 10.10.2011.  

                                                           Date of Decision:   02.03.2015.

 

Ramesh Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o # 15, Housefed Colony, Dabwali Road, now resident of H.No.6, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.

                                                                  .….Appellant/Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Second Floor, Jiwan Deep Building, 8 Parliament Street, New Delhi through its CMD /GM /Chairman /President.
2. Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., CDU Ferozepur.
3. Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda.
4. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122015 through its MD/Chairman/GM/President
5. Tara Automobiles Bathinda, Opposite ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Partner/Prop/MD.

 

       …..…Respondents/Opposite parties.

First Appeal against order dated 29.07.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

Before:-

                Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

                Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

        For the appellant            :  Sh.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate

          For respondents No.1-3:   Sh.Sukhdarshan Singh, Advocate

          For respondent No.4     :  Sh.S.R.Bansal, Advocate

          For respondent No.5     :   Ex-parte

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

                This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (complainant in the complaint) against the respondents of this appeal (‘opposite parties’ in the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against order dated 29.7.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) in  Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2011, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was partly accepted with cost of Rs.1000/- against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 4 & 5. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 were directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

2.                The brief facts of the case are that Sh.Ramesh Kumar Verma, complainant filed the complaint under the Act against the OPs on the averments that he purchased a new Maruti Swift Desire on 21.10.2009, manufactured by opposite party No. 4 (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Gurgaon).  He got the warranty extended from opposite party No. 4 for three years period. The complainant got the car registered, vide registration No. PB-03U 6316, and also got it insured from opposite party No. 2, vide policy No. 400098770 for the period from 21.10.2010 to 20.10.2011.  It was further pleaded in the complaint that on 10.02.2011, when the complainant was coming from Abohar to Bathinda, the said car struck with a bull, all of sudden, as the bull ran from the fields and thereby struck with the car. The complainant gave intimation regarding the accident to opposite party No. 3 and it deputed Sh. Dinesh Kumar surveyor to assess the damage to the car. The said surveyor directed the complainant to get the car repaired from opposite party No. 5, who further directed him to get the denting and painting from Krishna Automobiles Namdev Road, Bathinda. He paid Rs. 34,500/- to opposite party No. 5 and Rs. 20,800/- to Krishna Automobiles, Bathinda. It was alleged that OPs were not entitled to get anything from him, as the car was within the warranty period issued by opposite party No. 4. The complainant submitted all the documents to opposite party No. 3, but the opposite parties are adamant not to make the payment thereof. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint with the prayer that opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.55,300/-, which was paid by complainant to the opposite party No.5 and Krishna Automobiles, besides Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

3.                The complaint was contested by opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 by filing separate written reply before the District Forum, raising preliminary objections that the complaint was filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of the opposite parties.  The complaint is alleged to be false and frivolous.  Intricate question of facts and law are involved in the complaint, which requires voluminous evidence for determination of the dispute, which is not practicable in the summary procedure under the Act and the proper remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court.  The complainant concealed material facts and documents from the Forum.  On merits, it was further pleaded that after receipt of the intimation regarding the accident, Sh.Dinesh Kumar Surveyor was appointed to conduct the survey and to assess the loss.  He conducted the survey of the vehicle on 11.2.2011 at M/s Krishna Automobiles, Bathinda and also assessed the loss of Rs.16,726/- , vide report dated 24.02.2011 after applying the depreciation and other provisions as per terms and conditions of the policy and IMT.  It was further pleaded that the complainant also executed consent letter accepting the said assessment and also agreed to get Rs.16,726/- as full and final settlement of the claim.  It was further submitted that in the meantime, he filed the present complaint due to the grievances against OP No.4&5.  The payment of Rs.16,600/- has already been made to the complainant vide cheque No.158267 dated 11.04.2011.  It was further pleaded that they are concerned only with the amount of damages suffered by car in accident and due amount of payment against the said damage has already been made to the complainant.  Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for by the opposite parties No.1,2&3.

4.                The opposite party No. 4 filed separate written reply and it was pleaded that it was not privy to the matter in dispute between the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and 5.  It was pleaded that the accidental repair was not covered under Clause 4(d) of warranty policy.  The matter in dispute relates to and arises out of accidental repair, for which, the complainant has entered into independent contract with the workshop and Insurance company. The complainant had been making demand, which is beyond the scope of warranty period. It was further submitted that OP No.4 had no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer and the relationship between it and the dealer was that of Principal to Principal basis. The warranty was not absolute and was subject to certain terms, conditions and limitation provided at the time of sale by dealer, which was part and parcel of sale contract. The complainant would pay the additional premium to dealer for availing facility of extended warranty as per his own option. It was averred that the complainant took the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No.5 on 21.2.2011 at 54,455 Kms for obtaining running repairs. The complainant reported speedometer of the car not working, reverse gear lights not working, centre locking not working etc.  The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop in the presence of the complainant. Upon observation, it was discovered that the vehicle was found fitted with unauthorised/local fitments, such as hooter (siren) relay, headlamps of 90-100 watt. etc., as the accessories were not approved by opposite party No. 4 and were in contravention terms of warranty as per clause 4(e), (f), (g) & (h).  It was submitted that the original wiring settings were found tampered due to aforesaid fitments, resulting into major defect i.e. short circuit in wiring harness and Body Control Module (BCM).  The alleged repairs and replacements are not covered under the ambit of warranty.  The complainant to his entire will and volition allowed opposite party No. 5 to carry out repairs i.e. replacement of wiring harness and other necessary replacements on normal terms. The complainant paid the consideration to opposite party No.5 and took the delivery of the vehicle after service to his entire satisfaction and without any protest and demur.  Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

5.       The opposite party No. 5 in its separate written reply pleaded that the complainant never visited its workshop for the repair of the car in question nor opposite party No. 5 ever asked the complainant to take the car to Krishna Automobiles, Namdev Marg, Bathinda because opposite party No. 5 had big workshop with all modern equipments for repairing, denting and paining of vehicles and as such, there was no reason for asking the complainant to take the car in question to Krishan Automobiles, Bathinda.  It was admitted that the complainant for the first time came to the workshop of opposite party No. 5 on 21.02.2011 with speedometer non working; reverse gear lights not working; centre locking and power steering not working. The complainant did not disclose regarding any accident of the car.  As per Job Card No. JC10015496 dated 21-02-2011, necessary repair was provided by opposite party No. 5 by charging Rs.34,500/- from the complainant. The complainant was fully satisfied with the service provided by opposite party No. 5 and satisfactory note was also signed by the representative of the complainant for being fully satisfied on 03.3.2011, while taking the delivery of the car and since then, he never visited the workshop of opposite party No. 5.  It was further pleaded that complainant had unauthorizedly got fitted Hooter (siren) relay and head tube lights make 90-100 watt. instead of 12 Volt. & 60/55 watt. unauthorizedly in the car in question, which resulted in damage/short circuit the writing harness of the car. The warranty of product of Maruti Suzuki car did not cover any defect caused by misuse, negligent, abnormal use or insufficient care.  Any vehicle, which has been modified or altered, including without limitation, the installation of performance accessories and any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used, rather it leads to termination of warranty. It was pleaded that the amount of Rs. 34,500/- was rightly charged from the complainant for repairs carried out by OP No.5.

6.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C-2, Photocopy of Job Card Ex.C-3, photocopy of extended warranty card Ex.C-4, photocopy of extended warranty card Ex.C-5, affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Verma dated 23.06.2011 Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.  The opposite parties No.1,2&3 tendered in  evidence affidavit of Sh.P.K.Jain, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.R-1, Affidavit of Sh.Dinesh Kumar Goyal, Surveyor Ex.R-2, photocopy of estimate quotation Ex.R-3, photocopy of retail invoice dated 19.02.2011 Ex.R-4, photocopy of cheque Ex.R-5, photocopy of cheque dated 11.4.2011 Ex.R-6, Survey Report Ex.R-7, copy of RC of vehicle Ex.R-8, copy of Motor Claim Form Ex.R-9, copy of consent letter Ex.R-10, Copy of photographs Ex.R-11 to R-15, copy of terms and conditions of policy Ex.R-25 and closed the evidence.  Opposite party No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Midhun V.Suresh Ex.R-26, photocopy of dealership agreement Ex.R-27, copy of warranty policy Ex.R-28 and closed the evidence.  Opposite party No.5 tendered in evidence the affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Works Manager Ex.R-16, copy of job cards, Ex.R-17 & R-18, photocopy of satisfaction note Ex.R-19, photocopy of job card Ex.R-20, copy of warranty policy Ex.R-21, copy of specifications Ex.R-22, photographs Ex.R-23 to R-24 and closed the evidence.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Bathinda, partly accepted the complaint with cost of Rs.1000/- against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed it qua opposite party Nos. 4 & 5. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 were directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant.

7.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone though the record of the case.  As per order dated 27.04.2012, Ops were proceeded against ex-parte.

8.                Perusal of the record shows that the complainant insured Maruti Swift Desire with OPs No.1,2&3 vide policy No.400098770 for the period from 21.10.2010 to 20.10.2011 after paying the premium of Rs.14763/- which is proved on record as Ex.C-2.  He got the warranty extended from OP No.4 for three years vide Ex.C-4, which was valid upto 20.10.2012.  The complainant stated in the complaint that on 10.02.2011 when he was coming from Abohar to Bathinda, the said car struck with a bull, all of sudden, as the bull ran from the fields and struck with the car and the car was badly damaged.  Damaged car was repaired by the OP No.5 by charging Rs.34,500/- and directed the complainant to get the denting and painting from Krishan Automobiles, Patiala and the Krishna Automobiles charged Rs.20,800/- from the complainant.  It was alleged that he is not liable to pay anything for repair either to the OP No.5 or Krishna Automobiles, as his car was under warranty and he paid the aforesaid amount under protest.  Perusal of the record shows that he had signed the satisfaction note Ex.R-19 after receiving and after repair, where it has been written that the car has been repaired to his entire satisfaction.  We have also perused the job card Ex.R-20, vide which Rs.34,500/- was charged by OP No.5 being the charges for parts and labour.  As per the version of the complainant, the car was covered under extended warranty vide Ex.C-4&5.  We have also perused the terms and conditions of the warranty vide Ex.R-21 condition No.4 limitation of the said warranty is reproduced as under :-

          4.      Limitation :

          This warranty shall not apply to:

4. any repairs or replacement required as a result of accidents or collision.
5. any defects caused by misuse, negligence, abnormal use or insufficient care.

      6.  any vehicle which has been modified or altered, including without limitation, the installation of performance accessories. 

7. any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used.

    10. any vehicle which has been assembled, disassembled, adjusted or repaired by other than a Maruti Suzuki authorized dealer/service station.

 

9.                The complainant did not disclose the fact regarding the accident to OP No.5 as per the above said warranty condition, the complainant is not entitled to any relief under the warranty condition against OP No.4&5. Ex.R-17 reveals that complainant had got fitting in his car of the hooter (siren) relay, head lamps of 90-100 watt. etc., which is also violation of the warranty condition.  We have perused the surveyor report Ex.R-7 dated 24.02.2011.  The relevant report of the surveyor is as under:-

          Summary of Assessment

	Estimates		Assessment
Labour charges	19247.00	Labour Charges	12629.00
Cost of Parts	17838.00	Cost of Parts	8085.00
Total	37085.00	Depreciation	3488.00
		Towing Charges	Nil
		Excess Clauses	500.00
		Net Assessed Loss	16726.00
		Salvage Value	125/- appx.

 

10.              The complainant had given the consent letter dated 11.2.2011 Ex.R-10, in which, he accepted an amount of Rs.16,726/-.  The opposite parties have also placed on record the copy of cheque No.158267 dated 11.04.2011 for Rs.16,600/- vide Ex.R-6.

11.              There is no ground to increase the amount of compensation and there is no merit in the appeal.  The complainant did not fulfill the warranty conditions and the claim assessed by the surveyor is justified.   The finding of the District Forum is correct.  There is no ground to upset those findings.

12.              Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.

13.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 19.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                              (J.S.Klar)

                                                                Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

March  2, 2015                                             (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

LB/-                                                                        Member