Haryana

Karnal

516/12

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pearl Ford - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Kashyap

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 516 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt. 23.10.2012

                                                               Date of decision:03.10.2016

 

Daljit Singh son of Shri Nasib Singh resident of village Nathori Tehsil Indri District Karnal P.O. Garhi Birbal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Pearl Ford, 118/7, Mile Stone, National Highway no.1, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

2. Kanav Motors Pvt. Limited 118/7, Mile Stone, National Highway no.1 G.T. Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Karnal, through its Branch Manager. Vide policy no.11070031111000378009.

 

                                                                                 …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Rajneesh Kashyap Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Vinod Dogra Advocate for opposite parties no.1& 2.

                    Shri Parveen Daryal Advocate for opposite party no.3.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he got warranty of his Ford Fiesta car bearing registration no.HR-03K-0006 from the opposite party no.1 under the scheme of “Direct Settlement Policy” and certificate bearing no.15347 was issued by opposite party no.1 in that regard. As per the said policy the car was having warranty of one year from 6.11.2011 to 5.11.2012. The value of the car was assessed as Rs.3,69,000/- and an amount of Rs.2381/- was charged as premium. In July, 2012 the said car became defective, therefore, the same was taken to opposite party no.1 for repair. On the instruction of opposite party no.1, the car was repaired by opposite party no.2 the sister concern of opposite party no.1. After repair, the opposite party no.2 handed over a bill of Rs.1,00,000/- and asked for payment of the same. Opposite party no.1 refused to pay the amount by saying that amount was to be paid by him (complainant) and the matter would be sent to higher authorities for approval and if approval was received the amount would be paid to him. Therefore, he deposited the said amount under protest. Thereafter, he approached opposite party no.1 for refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the opposite party no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the opposite party no.1 refused to make the payment. Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 put into appearance and filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed to harass and humiliate the opposite parties unnecessarily and that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant has misconceived the “Direct Settlement Policy Certificate.” Infact, the said certificate was not issued for warranty of vehicle, rather the same was issued regarding the warranty of the policy which was issued by United India Insurance Company Limited and valid from 6.11.2011 to 5.11.2012. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves dismissal on this very ground. There was neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.3 also filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complaint is mis-use of process of law; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complicated questions of law and facts are involved which cannot be decided by this forum in summary manner.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.HR-03-K-0006 was insured by opposite party no.3 for the period of 6.11.2011 to 5.11.2012 for the purpose of accidental damages and not for mechanical defect. Therefore, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties affidavit of Pawan Kumar Gupta Managing Director Ex.OP1/A and affidavit of S.S.Vasudeva Deputy Manager Ex.OP3/1 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                Admittedly, the car of the complainant was insured by opposite party no.3 for the period of 6.11.2011 to 5.11.2012. It is not the case of the complainant that the said car had met with some accident and was damaged in such accident during subsistence of the policy. The case of the complainant is that the car became defective and he got repaired the same from opposite party no.2 as per instructions of opposite party no.1 and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for repairs. He also produced the copies of the bills Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. His main plank is the copy of “Direct Settlement Policy Certificate” issued by opposite party no.1, Ex.C4. A perusal of the said document indicates that there could be direct settlement regarding the claim from opposite party no.3 with which the car was insured. Certain conditions have been mentioned under which there can be no direct settlement. This certificate does not indicate that the opposite party no.1 or opposite party no.3 had given any warranty regarding repair of the defects in the vehicle during the period of insurance. The opposite party no.1 had not given any warranty regarding the vehicle, which was of 2008 Model. It appears that the complainant has misconceived this document as a warranty for repair of the defects of the car during the period of the policy. The complainant could not produce any other document according to which he is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount spent by him on repairs of the defects of his vehicle.

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member