Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 556.
Instituted on : 04.10.2011.
Decided on : 07.09.2016.
Sunil Vashist s/o Sh. M.P.Sharma R/o H.No.8, Inderprasth Colony Sonepat Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Raj Motors, Raj Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its General Manager.
- Tata Motors, Northern Region, SCO-170, 171, 172, 1st Floor, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
- Global Administration Services, Vatika Triangle 5th Floor, Sushant Lok-1, Block-1, M.G.Road Gurgaon through its Proprietor/Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Jimmi Rathi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a car from the opposite party no.1 with 2 years free of cost warranty and 2 years of paid extended warranty and the same was registered with the registering authority vide registration No.HR-12L/7972. It is averred that complainant got serviced the car on each and every time from the opposite party no.1 i.e. authorized dealer of opposite party no.2 and not elsewhere. It is averred that complainant got checked the car from opposite party no.1 on 19.09.2011 after feeling some abnormal noise from engine on 18.09.2011. Opposite party no.1 parked the car for claiming extended warranty to replace the engine kit and applied for warranty claim but till date neither the claim has been approved nor rejected as told by the opposite party no.1. It is averred that due to non-availability of vehicle, complainant is suffering a lot. It is averred that on 02.10.2011 complainant sent an email letter to the opposite party no.2 either to provide the genuine claim or the complainant be allowed to got the car repaired on his own expenditure. It is averred that on 02.10.2011 complainant sent an email letter to the opposite party no.2 either to provide the genuine claim or the complainant be allowed to get the car repaired on his own expenditure. It is averred that complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to approve the claim and lastly on 02.10.2011 but of no avail. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to approve the claim of extended warranty failing which the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim of complainant to the tune of Rs.175000/- including of repair claim, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses etc. to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant had purchased the said car from the opposite party no.1 and the warranty was extended by Global administration services i.e. opposite party no.3. It is averred that it is correct upto the fact that the complainant got serviced the said car from opposite party no.1. However the complainant sometimes got the car serviced from other dealers also. It is correct that complainant got checked the car from opposite party no.1 and parked the same for claim in the workshop of opposite party no.1. The warranty of above said car was extended by opposite party no.3 and the claim was sent by the opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.1 has no concern passing of claim. The claim has to be passed by opposite party no.3. It is averred that the complainant has replaced oil pump and air filter assembly from local market and due to this act the engine of said car got damaged and the extended warranty stands cancelled automatically. In fact the complainant is satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite party no.1. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. However none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 & 3 despite the fact that notice was sent to the opposite party no.2 & 3 through registered post and as such opposite party no.2 vide order dated 21.11.2011 and opposite party no.3 vide order dated 06.07.2012 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and also got his vehicle repaired from the opposite party no.1 and applied for warranty claim under the extended warranty. But the same has not been paid by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, contention of opposite party no.1 is that the complainant had got repaired his vehicle from the opposite party no.1 and he was satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite party no.1 and a satisfaction note Ex.R1 was issued by the complainant in this regard. It is further contended that the extended warranty was agreed by the opposite party no.3 and the claim was to be passed by the opposite party no.3 and the insurance company.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the statement dated 22.07.2016 given by ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1, the liability of claim was of insurance company and not of the opposite party no.1 because the opposite party no.1 has repaired the vehicle of complainant and a satisfaction note was issued by the complainant. Hence the liability if any, is of the insurance company. It is also observed that as per the documents Ex.C3 and Ex.C5, the vehicle of the complainant was insured with the United India Insurance Company under extended warranty but in the present case Insurance company has not been impleaded as necessary party. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in II(2008)CPJ256 titled as U.K.Jamshid Vs.K.V.Ratnakaran whereby Hon’ble Kerala State Commission, Thiruvananthapuram has held that: “Complaint bad for non joinder of necessary party-Forum wrongly made O.P. liable by relying on hearsay evidence-No deficiency in service on the part of O.P. proved-No compensation entitled”. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that in the present case also, insurance company has not been impleaded as necessary party. As such the present complaint stands dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
