O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’ against the Opposite Parties, hereinafter to be called as OPs. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Two-wheeler make Hero (PASSION PRO 10) on 4.6.2010 from OP-1. It is alleged in the complaint that the said vehicle was duly insured with ICIC Lombard Motor Insurance i.e. OP-2 with validity from 8.6.2012 to midnight of 7.6.2013. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 12.9.2012, the complainant’s vehicle got jammed by itself and he hit a stone and got struck with the divider on the road near Delhi University. It is alleged that on 13.9.2012, the complainant took the vehicle to the Authorized Service Centre i.e. OP-1. It has been also alleged by the complainant that he has also informed OP-2 i.e. Insurance Company regarding the incident. OP-1 on 22.9.2012 delivered the vehicle back to the complainant but charged Rs.1640/- which was paid under due receipt. It has also been pleaded that total bill was Rs.2940/- out of which Rs.1300/- was borne by the Insurance Company being cashless amount. It has been pleaded that the complainant has been be fooled by OP-1 as the vehicle was not duly and fully repaired by it as the oil was leaking from the chamber. Vide the present complaint the complainant is seeking the relief of reimbursement of amount which was paid by the complainant towards the maintenance of the vehicle and directions to the OPs to get the vehicle repaired and also award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, financial loss and loss of reputation amongst his friends and relatives.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the O.Ps. OP-1 & 3 have filed joint reply in which it has been pleaded that the complaint is gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed with the sole view of causing undue harassment and arm–twisting of the OP No.1 & 3 for unlawful gain by the complainant. It has been pleaded that the contractual obligation cast upon the manufacturer i.e. OP-1 & 3 of the motorcycle vide the terms of the warranty is to cause repair/replacement of those parts which are found defective as per their best judgement and the same is subject to the factum of cause not having emanated from either misuse or improper handling. It has been further pleaded that the warranty is a binding contract between the complainant on the one hand and the OPs on the other. It has been pleaded that as per the complainant itself the OP-1 & 3 have denied that the vehicle got jammed itself or there was any manufacturing defect. In this regard it has been referred to the inspection of the vehicle on made 13.9.2012. OP-1 has also verified the said fact. It has been pleaded that no such report exist in the inspection of the vehicle from the Service Station of OP-1 at the time of inspection. The OPs have further denied the quantum of claimed compensation and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP-2 has also filed its written statement wherein it has stated that the investigator assessed the claim of Rs.1380 which was paid to the complainant, therefore, averments made in the complaint against OP-1 have been vehemently denied.
4. The complainant as well all the O.Ps have filed their evidences by way of affidavits in support of respective averments made in the complaint as well as written statement. The complainant has filed on record copy of Insurance Policy which has not disputed and bills of OP-1 which shows that the vehicle was repaired at the Service Station of OP-1. OPs have filed the copy of limitations of warranty along with reply.
5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as documents placed on the file. The main grouse of the complainant is that he was forced to pay a sum of Rs.1640/- for repair of the vehicle. In this regard, it is stated that on 30.11.2015, the Counsel for the OP-2 offered to pay the amount of Rs.1640/- to settle the matter to which the Proxy Counsel for the complainant also agreed. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 11.12.2015, the Counsel for the complainant declined the offer made by the OP-2. Admittedly the conduct of OP-2 was fair which shows that he was ready and willing to settle the matter.
6. The complainant has failed to prove by way of documentary evidence that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. The cash receipt of the vehicle at the time after the repaired of the vehicle also do not show that any work of engine repair was carried out by the OP-1.
7. In such circumstances, in our considered view the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, complainant is entitled to receive Rs.1640/- which was charged by the OP-1 from the complainant. No case of deficiency in service has been made out against OP-1 & 3. Hence complaint qua OP-1 & 3 is dismissed. OP-2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1640/- to the complainant. The complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.1500/- towards compensation which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 09th day of May, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
