Delhi

East Delhi

CC/225/2013

POONAM JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRIME HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  225/13

 

Ms. Poonam Jain

Proprietor

M/s. Shri Digamber Polymer

132, FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092                                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Prime Honda

Capital Cars Pvt., Ltd.

Plot No. 1, Patparganj Industrial Complex

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor

Plot No. 3, Sector-29

Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana

 

3. Mr. Harish Juneja

C/o IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor

Plot No. 3, Sector-29

Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana                                                     …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 14.03.2013

Judgement Reserved on : 20.12.2017

Judgement Passed on: 21.12.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Ms. Poonam Jain against           M/s. Prime Honda (OP-1), IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., IFFCO Tower, 4^th & 5^th Floor, Plot No. 3, Sector-29, Gurgaon – 122 001, Haryana (OP-2) and Mr. Harish Juneja, C/o OP-2 (OP-3), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Ms. Poonam Jain got an insurance policy no. ITG/82012601 dated 07.03.2011, issued from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) at the instance of Prime Honda (OP-1) for a total consideration of Rs. 9,812/-, which was for the period from 09.03.2011 to 08.03.2012.  The said car met with an accident on 14.08.2011 which was given to Prime Honda (OP-1) for repairs at its service centre with Service Check Sheet Memo no. 14202 dated 18.08.2011. 

            The Service Manager of Prime Honda (OP-1) prepared an estimate for repairs for about Rs. 77,500/- vide memo no. 29770 on 18.08.2011 assuring that the surveyor shall inspect the damages on car within 24 hours on priority basis as guaranteed by Honda Assure Program and car would be repaired soon thereafter.  The complainant enquired about the progress of the work, but did not get any satisfactory answer for more than 14 days, which caused undue harassment and humiliation to the complainant.  Rather they delayed the repair work for two weeks without any sufficient cause which stated to be deficiency in services. 

            Finally, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-3) surveyed the car of the complainant at the service centre of Prime Honda (OP-1) on 31.08.2011 after a delay of 14 days from the date of delivering the car.  They refused to pass the claim of the complainant by falsely alleging the damages to be old and rusted.  The complainant got surveyed a legal notice of dated 07.09.2011 which was not replied by them.  Thus, it has been stated that Prime Honda (OP-1) and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) have pocketed the money of the complainant and have failed to provide the service for the same which amounts to cheating as well as deficiency in service.  Thus, the complainant have claimed an amount of Rs. 61,918/- from IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) as well as Rs. 60,000/- on account of undue mental harassment from OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 alongwith cost of litigation.

3.         In the reply, filed on behalf of Prime Honda (OP-1), they have taken the plea that vehicle was used for commercial purpose as the same was registered in the name of M/s. Digamber Polymer, a Proprietorship Firm, and thus, the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  They have further stated that they were merely authorized dealer and not the insurance provider.  Other facts have also been denied.

            In the WS, filed on behalf of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., they have stated that the surveyor report clearly established that the damages found in the body of the subject car were old, rusted and pre-wear.  There was no sign of fresh accident and the cause of accident was not related with the condition of the vehicle.  Thus, they have stated that there was no deficiency on their part.  The complainant intentionally not getting her vehicle repaired during the tenure of previous insurer, by not lodging a claim during the tenure of previous insurer, claimed “No Claim Bonus” of 20%.  Thus, they have denied their liability.

4.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit.  She has narrated the contents of the complaint.  She has also got exhibited documents such as copy of registration certification of the car (Ex.CW1/1), copy of letter dated 18.02.2011(Ex.CW1/2), copy of insurance policy of the car (Ex.CW1/3), copy of Service Check Sheet Memo no. 14202 dated 18.08.2011 (Ex.CW1/4), copy of estimate of repairs vide memo no. 29770 (Ex.CW1/5), copy of invoice no. 1113206 dated 31.08.2011 (Ex.CW1/6), copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2011 alongwith postal receipts (Ex.CW1/7 and 1/8), copy of service check sheet memo no. 19098 dated 30.09.2011 (Ex.CW1/9), copy of invoice no. 1115852 dated 30.09.2011 (Ex.CW1/10), copy of invoice no. 1116529 dated 10.10.2011 (Ex.CW1/11), copy of receipt no. BR/4286 dated 13.10.2011 (Ex.CW1/12) and copy of election voter ID of the deponent (Ex.CW1/13). 

            In defence, Prime Honda (OP-1) have examined                           Shri Kamal Manchanda, who has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts which have been stated in the WS. 

            M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2 & 3) have examined Shri Rajeev Choudhary, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of Survey Report with photographs (Ex. 1) and copy of “Policy Wording for Private Cars” (Ex. 2).

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for Prime Honda (OP-1), M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2 & 3) and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2 & 3) that the damages were old, rusted and pre-wear.  There was no sign of fresh damages.  He has drawn the attention of the Forum to the Survey Report, filed on their behalf.  The arguments, which has been advanced on behalf of OP-1 has been that they are not the service provider and they were only the dealers.  On the face of it, Prime Honda (OP-1) is not the insurer, but a car dealer.  Thus, no liability can be put on OP-1.

            Coming to the liability of M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2 & 3), if a look is made to the Survey Report, it has been stated in the said report that “All the damages were old, rusted & pre-wear.  No sign of fresh accident was seen.  The cause of accident was not related with the condition of vehicle, therefore, it is advised to the insurer to treat this as No Claim.”  The fact that damages to the vehicle were old, rusted and pre-wear and there was no sign of fresh accident, no liability can be fastened on M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP- 2 & 3).  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Prime Honda (OP-1), M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.      (OP-3).  Therefore, the complaint is devoid of any merits and the same deserves its dismissal and is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.          

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member 

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President