Punjab

Sangrur

CC/423/2016

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Radiant Toyota - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Swarn Singh Ratol

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  423

                                                Instituted on:    13.06.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.12.2016

 

 

Karamjit Singh son of Sh. Chuhar Singh, resident of H.No.24, Part-I, Village Dhabbi Gujjran, Tehsil Patran, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Radiant Toyota, Chaddha Super Care (P) Limited, Village Bhindra, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Global Toyota, Chaddha Super Cars (P) Limited, Village Bhindra, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

3.             Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited, No.24, 10^th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Mallya Road, Near Mallaya Hospital, Bangalore-560001 through its Authorised Signatory.

4.             Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 350-352, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP No.1&3         :       Shri M.S.Sethi,Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Sanjeev Garg,Adv.

For OP No.4             :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Karamjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a new car Toyota Etios from OP number 1, which was got insured from OP number 1 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.25,424/- and issued cover note number 34352047, but no terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant. Later on the vehicle was registered as bearing number PB-11-BV-6958.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 26.2.2016 near Radha Swami Satsang Ghar, Patran and damaged badly and the vehicle was taken to OP number 1 and intimation of the accident was also given to OP number 4. The OP number 1 prepared the estimate for Rs.1,50,000/- for the repair of the vehicle.   The OP number 1 assured the complainant that the vehicle will be delivered after a period of 15 days and he had to pay only Rs.1,000/-, but the vehicle was not given despite his best efforts. The OP number 1 did not repair the vehicle till the filing of the complaint. Further it is stated that the OPs number 1 and 2 are the authorised dealer of the OP number 3 for selling the cars. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to repair the vehicle and to deliver the same in road worthy condition and further to pay compensation of Rs.500/- per day for non use of the vehicle and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint,  that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Sangrur, that the complainant has suppressed the material facts, that the complainant has not paid any consideration to the OP number 1 for alleged repairing of the vehicle against the insurance policy,  that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the car in question in October, 2015 and the same was got insured from OP number 4.  It has been denied that unfortunately during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the car in question met with an accident and damaged badly. It is also denied that the OP number 1 prepared any estimate for Rs.1,50,000/-. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant does not disclose any deficiency in service, that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  It is stated further that the OP number 2 started its dealership w.e.f. 1.5.2016 and as such the OP approached the complainant for the repair work to be done with regard to the vehicle in question. However, the complainant informed the OP that since he has given the vehicle to OP number 1 and firstly it will take up the matter with it.  The complainant took time for discussion with OP number 1 and finally gave the approval for repair of the vehicle in question on 2.6.2016 and accordingly the job order was opened and estimate of repair work was handed over to the complainant on the same very day. The vehicle in question was ready for delivery and it was informed to OP number 4 that the cost of the repair of the vehicle amounts to Rs.1,36,504/-, but the OP number 4 passed the claim of the vehicle in question for Rs.1,29,055/- and the OP number 4 informed the complainant that as per the policy, the depreciation amount of Rs.7449/- is to be borne by the complainant, but the complainant was adamant to take the delivery of the vehicle in question without making any payment by alleging that he has taken the cash less policy.  The complainant was not taking the delivery of the vehicle in question, therefore, the OP wrote a letter dated 23.7.2016 requesting him to lift his vehicle. The complainant made the payment of Rs.7450/- against invoice dated 25.7.2016 as repair charges. However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the relationship between the OP number 3 and dealer is on principal to principal basis, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP number 3,  that the complaint is vague, baseless and has been filed with malafide intent, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the complaint is against OP number  1 and 4 and the OP number 3 need not to reply and deny the allegations levelled in the complaint.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

6.             In reply filed by OP number 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle of the complainant is insured with the OP number 4. However, it is stated that the claim is payable as per the policy terms and conditions.  It is stated that after receipt of the intimation on 16.6.2016, the OP number 4 immediately appointed Er. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, surveyor and loss assessor for assessing the loss. The surveyor visited the workshop of OP number 2 on 17.6.2016 and inspected the damaged vehicle. Thereafter the complainant was asked to provide the documents in support of accident as the intimation was given after a delay of 110 days. The surveyor also wrote letters dated 25.6.2016 and 6.7.2016 for reasons of delay in intimation. The final bill was provided by OP number 2 on 25.7.2016 and thereafter the OP number 4 paid the amount of Rs.1,29,055/- to the OP number 2 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of cover note, Ex.C-3 copy of RC, Ex.C-4 copy of DL, Ex.C-5 copy of bill and Ex.C-6 copy of self declaration and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.Op1/2 copy of agreement and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with annexure R-2/1 to Annexure R-2/6 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for op number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit, Ex.OP4/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP4/3 copy of survey report and closed evidence.

 

8.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

 

9.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP number 1 on 3.9.2015, which was got insured from the OP number 4 under cash less policy.  It is also an admitted fact that the car in question met with an accident on 26.2.2016, as such the vehicle was taken to OP number 1 for repairs and the intimation of accident was given to OP number 4, the insurance company.  But, in the present case the grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant immediately after repairs. On the other hand, the stand of the op number 1 is that the complainant never brought the vehicle in question to it nor  OP number  1 has any knowledge about the accident in question.  The stand of the OP number 2 in the written reply is that the Radiant Toyota finally gave the approval for repair of the vehicle in question on 2.6.2016 and accordingly job order was opened and the estimate of repair work was handed over to the complainant on the same very day and after the due approval of the complainant, the OP number 2 done the repair work of the vehicle in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, though it had no tie up with the insurance company i.e. OP number 4. The OP number 2 intimated that the cost of repair of the vehicle amounts to Rs.1,36,504/-, but the OP number 4 passed the claim for Rs.1,29,055/- and as such the OP number 2 asked the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.7449/- which was not paid by the complainant despite repeated requests.  The stand of the OP number 3 is that they have to do nothing in the matter, whereas the OP number 4 has contended vehemently that as soon as they received the bill from OP number 2 for the repairs of the car in question, the payment was immediately made by OP number 4 to the OP number 2. 

 

10.           After carefully perusal of the file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it reveals that the vehicle in question met with an accident and after all the car in question came in the possession of OP number 2 on 5.4.2016 (date of agreement between OP number 1 and 2) for repairs after due approval of the OP number 1 as the OP number 1 had handed over all its business to the OP number 2, meaning thereby the OP number 2 stepped into the shoes of OP number 1.  The OP number 2 repaired the car in question on 22.7.2016 i.e. the OP number 2 took 105 days for repair of the car which is too much.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 2 that why they took a long time for repairs of the car, due to which the complainant was deprived from its usage.  Under the circumstances, the fact remains that the OP number 2 took a long period of 105 days for the repair of the car in question, for which the OP number 2 is liable to pay a suitable compensation to the complainant due to non usage of the car by the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 4 immediately made the payment after receipt of the bill to OP number 2. Under the circumstances, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OP number 2 is directed to pay  a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for not repairing the vehicle in time and the complainant remained without the usage of the car for such a  long period i.e. from the date of accident till its repairs in full.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 2 to pay  a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for not repairing the vehicle in time.  We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 2,2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member