BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 588 of 2016

Date of Institution: 03.11.2016

Date of Decision: 15.11.2017 

Paramjit Khepar son of Sh.Amar Chand, resident of R-421, Balsarai Khurd, Dera Baba Jaimal Singh, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Novelty Hyundai (Divisional of Novelty Associates Private Limited), Near New Amritsar, G.T.Road, Amritsar-143001 through is General Manager.
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-350-51-52, Ist Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (Registered Office of Insurer: Ist Floor, Ferns Icon, Survey No.28, Doddenekundi, Off Outer Ringh Road, Bengaluru, Karnatka-560037 through is Branch Manager/ Zonal Head.  

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).

Present: For the  Complainant: Sh.Mohit Mahajan, Advocate.      

              For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate.

              For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.R.P.Singh, Advocate.              

Coram

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant booked Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDi (s) vehicle by paying Rs.75,000/- on 28 October 2015 and paid sum of Rs.2 lacs, Rs.6,98,532/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,86,400/- on 3 November 2015,  5^th November, 2015 and 7^th November, 2015 and 7^th  November, 2015 respectively to Opposite Party No.1. Thus total amount paid to 1. Thus total amount paid to Opposite Party No.1 was Rs.12,09,932/-.  The complainant took the delivery of the Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDI (S) vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 at Amritsar through Delivery note vide challan No.311 Invoice dated 7.11.2015 with details of chassis No.MALC281RLFM042898, Engine No.D4FCFM455156, Vehicle Type: SUV, Colour: White (PJW), Key No.PO658, Horse Power: 139CC, Mfg.Date: Nov-2015 at the rate of Rs.10,72,478/-. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,09,932/- to Opposite Party No.1 on account of purchase value of vehicle, for registration of vehicle & depositing  road tax with the government authority, and for the insurance of the vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 got issued insurance policy on 7.11.2015 (11:49) at the time of delivery of vehicle, by paying an amount of Rs.31,908/- to Opposite Party No.2, in favour of the complainant’s above said vehicle, vide policy No.HAX/58200250, Proposal No.P5517701, dated 7.11.2015 by indicating period of insurance  as 7.11.215 (11:49) to 6.11.2016 (midnight). Said  vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 19.11.2015 and the complainant informed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 at the same time and brought vehicle on 20.11.2015 to M/s.Barkeley Huundai, Chandigarh, authorized dealer of the company at Chandigarh who repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.25,490/- from the complainant. The complainant wrote many e-mails and followed personally with Opposite Party No.2 to release the amount of Rs.25,490/- to  him which he had to spend on account of the accident of the vehicle on 19.11.2015, but to no avail. In the end the complainant complained against Opposite Party No.2 to the IRDA. Opposite Party No.2 vide its letter dated 12.7.2016 informed the complainant that they regret their inability to  admit the claim of the complainant for the reasons that the insured vehicle was purchased on 7.11.2015 and loss occurred on 19.11.2015 and the complainant applied for road tax on 20.11.2015 and the vehicle was plying on road without valid registration which is  violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions  and further asserted that while applying for permanent registration through online portal the complainant declared wrong insurance details. But it is incorrect that the complainant applied for road tax on 20.11.2015 as the same was done by Opposite Party No.1 who kept the amount charged from the complainant with itself and mentioned wrong details  in order to cover up its wrong doing of keeping the case of the complainant pending for about 13 days, which is a proved fact of unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1.    Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to make the payment of insurance of Rs.25,940/-.

b)      To make the payment of Rs.25,000/- on account expenses incurred by the complainant to pursue the case of insurance till receipt of rejection letter from Opposite Party No.2.

c)       To make the payment of fee of Rs.22,000/-  to the advocate.

d)      To pay compensation amounting to Rs.5 lacs for causing harassment and mental agony alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is legally not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It is the complainant who is guilty for his own acts and conducts. At the time of purchase of the car in question from the Opposite Party No.1,  the complainant has requested the Opposite Party No.1 not to deposit the tax amount to the concerned department for the preparation  of the RC of the car and the reason behind for such request was that the complainant wants to retain back the registration number of his old car and it was requested by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 that he himself will deposit the requisite fee with the department to retain back the same number as was of his old car.  Accordingly, the complainant had taken delivery of new car from the Opposite Party No.1 at his own consent and as per his own responsibility. It is pertinent to mention over here that on 19.11.2015, the complainant had provided the receipt regarding deposit of charges of NOC from the office of DTO, Amritsar and as per the instructions of the complainant on the very next day i.e. on 20.11.2015, Opposite Party No.1 has deposited  the tax amount to  the concerned department for issuance of the RC of  the car in the name of the complainant and as per request and demand of the complainant to the concerned department, RC of the car was directly send to the complainant by the DTO Amritsar  and as per the choice of  the complainant, same number was allotted to the  complainant by the concerned department. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of accident of the vehicle on 19.11.2016, as pleaded by the complainant in his complaint, registration number PB-17B-0019 was mentioned on the car of the complainant and this fact is duly proved from the record produced by the complainant himself. When the car was  brought to service centre of Berkeley Hundai, Chandigarh on 20.11.2015, job car was issued by the said agency in the name of the complainant and registration number of the vehicle was written on job card as PB-17B-0019, it clearly shows that complainant wants to get the registration number of his own choice and it is the complainant who is guilty for such delay to obtain NOC from the concerned department by depositing the amount on 18.11.2015. As such, it clearly shows that there is no such delay as alleged by the complainant in his complaint to deposit the tax amount to the concerned department. On merits, the Opposite Party No.1 took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No.2  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action against Opposite Party No.2. In the complaint allegations have been levelled by the complainant against Opposite Party No.1 regarding non applying the RC in time as well as given wrong information at the time of applying RC regarding date of insurance, therefore, the complaint against the Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable being without any cause of action, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it is submitted that  as admitted by the complainant that letter dated 12.7.2016 was issued to the complainant regarding the repudiation of the claim on the basis of violation of terms and conditions. The complainant himself admitted that on the date of occurrence, the vehicle was being plying on the road without RC and no road tax was paid by the complainant, therefore, on the basis of violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act and violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A  in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1   to Ex.C12  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/5             and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Similarly, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Shivali Sharma, Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.  

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that  the complainant booked Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDi (s) vehicle by paying Rs.75,000/- on 28 October 2015 and paid sum of Rs.2 lacs, Rs.6,98,532/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,86,400/- on 3 November 2015,  5^th November, 2015 and 7^th November, 2015 and 7^th  November, 2015 respectively to Opposite Party No.1. Thus total amount paid to 1. Thus total amount paid to Opposite Party No.1  was Rs.12,09,932/-.  The complainant took the delivery of the Hyundai Creta 1.4 CRDI (S) vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 at Amritsar through Delivery note vide challan No.311 Invoice dated 7.11.2015 with details of chassis No.MALC281RLFM042898, Engine No.D4FCFM455156, Vehicle Type: SUV, Colour: White (PJW), Key No.PO658, Horse Power: 139CC, Mfg.Date: Nov-2015 at the rate of Rs.10,72,478/-. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.12,09,932/- to Opposite Party No.1 on account of purchase value of vehicle, for registration of vehicle & depositing  road tax with the government authority, and for the insurance of the vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 got issued insurance policy on 7.11.2015 (11:49) at the time of delivery of vehicle, by paying an amount of Rs.31,908/- to Opposite Party No.2, in favour of the complainant’s above said vehicle, vide policy No.HAX/58200250, Proposal No.P5517701, dated 7.11.2015 by indicating period of insurance  as 7.11.215 (11:49) to 6.11.2016 (midnight). Said  vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 19.11.2015 and the complainant informed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 at the same time and brought vehicle on 20.11.2015 to M/s.Barkeley Huundai, Chandigarh, authorized dealer of the company at Chandigarh who repaired the vehicle and charged Rs.25,490/- from the complainant. The complainant wrote many e-mails and followed personally with Opposite Party No.2 to release the amount of Rs.25,490/- to  him which he had to spend on account of the accident of the vehicle on 19.11.2015, but to no avail. In the end the complainant complained against Opposite Party No.2 to the IRDA. Opposite Party No.2 vide its letter dated 12.7.2016 informed the complainant that they regret their inability to  admit the claim of the complainant for the reasons that the insured vehicle was purchased on 7.11.2015 and loss occurred on 19.11.2015 and the complainant applied for road tax on 20.11.2015 and the vehicle was plying on road without valid registration which is  violation of section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act and policy terms and conditions  and further asserted that while applying for permanent registration through online portal the complainant declared wrong insurance details. But it is incorrect that the complainant applied for road tax on 20.11.2015 as the same was done by Opposite Party No.1 who kept the amount charged from the complainant with itself and mentioned wrong details  in order to cover up its wrong doing of keeping the case of the complainant pending for about 13 days, which is a proved fact of unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1. 

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complaint is legally not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.  It is the complainant who is guilty for his own acts and conducts. At the time of purchase of the car in question from the Opposite Party No.1,  the complainant has requested the Opposite Party No.1 not to deposit the tax amount to the concerned department for the preparation  of the RC of the car and the reason behind for such request was that the complainant wants to retain back the registration number of his old car and it was requested by the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 that he himself will deposit the requisite fee with the department to retain back the same number as was of his old car.  Accordingly, the complainant had taken delivery of new car from the Opposite Party No.1 at his own consent and as per his own responsibility. It is pertinent to mention over here that on 19.11.2015, the complainant had provided the receipt regarding deposit of charges of NOC from the office of DTO, Amritsar and as per the instructions of the complainant on the very next day i.e. on 20.11.2015, Opposite Party No.1 has deposited  the tax amount to  the concerned department for issuance of the RC of  the car in the name of the complainant and as per request and demand of the complainant to the concerned department, RC of the car was directly send to the complainant by the DTO Amritsar  and as per the choice of  the complainant, same number was allotted to the  complainant by the concerned department. It is pertinent to mention over here that at the time of accident of the vehicle on 19.11.2016, as pleaded by the complainant in his complaint, registration number PB-17B-0019 was mentioned on the car of the complainant and this fact is duly proved from the record produced by the complainant himself. When the car was  brought to service centre of Berkeley Hundai, Chandigarh on 20.11.2015, job car was issued by the said agency in the name of the complainant and registration number of the vehicle was written on job card as PB-17B-0019, it clearly shows that complainant wants to get the registration number of his own choice and it is the complainant who is guilty for such delay to obtain NOC from the concerned department by depositing the amount on 18.11.2015. As such, it clearly shows that there is no such delay as alleged by the complainant in his complaint to deposit the tax amount to the concerned department. Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 also contended that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action against Opposite Party No.2. In the complaint allegations have been levelled by the complainant against Opposite Party No.1 regarding non applying the RC in time as well as given wrong information at the time of applying RC regarding date of insurance, therefore, the complaint against the Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable being without any cause of action, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, it is submitted that  as admitted by the complainant that letter dated 12.7.2016 was issued to the complainant regarding the repudiation of the claim on the basis of violation of terms and conditions. The complainant himself admitted that on the date of occurrence, the vehicle was being lying on the road without RC and no road tax was paid by the complainant, therefore, on the basis of violation of section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act and violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim was rightly repudiated.  On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant has failed to produce on record any evidence or document to prove that the Opposite Parties have wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant. Moreover, the documents produced on record by the Opposite Parties shows that at the time of accident of the vehicle on 19.11.2016, as pleaded by the complainant in his complaint, registration number PB-17B-0019 was mentioned on the car of the complainant and this fact is duly proved from the record produced by the complainant himself. When the car was  brought to service centre of Berkeley Hundai, Chandigarh on 20.11.2015, job car was issued by the said agency in the name of the complainant and registration number of the vehicle was written on job card as PB-17B-0019, it clearly shows that complainant wants to get the registration number of his own choice and it is the complainant who is guilty for such delay to obtain NOC from the concerned department by depositing the amount on 18.11.2015. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 9.      In view of the aforesaid  facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum