BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 112 of 2011.
Date of Institution : 12.5.2011
Date of Decision : 02.09.2016
Manoj Sharma aged about 45 years son of Shri Krishan Gopal, resident of Ram Colony, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Raja Motors Hyundai, Raja Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through proprietor/ Manager/ authorized signatory.
- Shri Om Parkash Makkar, Proprietor/ Manager/authorized signatory Raja Motors Hyundai- Raja Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
- Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Sangwan Chowk, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.S.Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 & 2.
Sh. K.R.Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to purchase a car of Hyundai make. The authorized Incharge of ops No.1 & 2 recommended to purchase I-10 car and also explained about the discount, insurance scheme and other scheme launched and recommended by the company for promoting the sale business. The authorized Incharge also explained about the scheme of insurance policy launched in collaboration with the Hyundai company that is known as a cashless policy for which the consumer was not to pay even a single penny in case of loss to the insured car. Accordingly, the complainant contacted with the Manager of State Bank of Patiala for taking assistance of finance for purchasing car. The required demand draft prepared by the Manager of said bank in favour of ops No.1 & 2 which was handed over to them. The ops No.1 & 2 after receiving the cash amount alongwith demand draft issued bill dated 28.12.2010 in favour of complainant. The first service of the car under the guarantee and warranty could not be done as the prescribed mileage and time period was not completed. Unfortunately, the car of complainant met with an accident on 1.3.2011. The complainant immediately informed in this regard to Incharge Neeraj Kumar of ops No.1 & 2 and requested him for uplifting the car from the place of accident who assured him that car will be brought to the agency but that was not done despite waiting for many hours. Finally, the complainant arranged his own sources and took the car to the premises of ops No.1 & 2. The Surveyor was also called there at the request of complainant and upon enquiry, Mr. Neeraj Kumar and surveyor assured him that even the first service of the car is due, moreover as per the insurance policy the risk of any accident is free being cashless policy. The proprietor of ops no.1 & 2 also assured the same thing. The concerned Incharge also disclosed him that there are few minor defects due to accident but these defects could easily be removed by replacing the parts. However, the car was not provided to him for many days despite his several visits and he had to spent Rs.15,000/20,000/- for arranging taxi as he had to go Delhi, Agra and Chandigarh in family functions and ultimately he was asked to come on 31.3.2011. It is further pleaded that at that time he was shocked with a new version put by the Incharge of op no.2 that he has to deposit Rs.45/46,000/- in cash and he stated that if he needs the possession of the car he has to pay the said amount. The complainant persistently requested and tried to remind them about their earlier assurances but to no effect. The complainant after arranging money went to ops No.1 & 2 for receiving the car on 2.4.2011 and ops No.1 & 2 demanded a sum of Rs.49,500/- for the replacement of the parts and for the service etc. despite cashless policy issued by op no.3. The complainant received the car under protest and also written a protest letter on 1.4.2011 but to no effect. Ultimately ops No.1 & 2 have received Rs.49,500/- through receipt no.5644 dated 2.4.2011 and complainant also endorsed his protest in this regard on the bill. The complainant has been harassed and tortured by the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing written statement denying all the averments of the complaint in toto. It has been submitted that insurance contract is between the complainant and op no.3. The op no.2 never gave any alleged assurance to the complainant. The complainant brought the accidental car at the workshop of answering ops for conducting repairs on the same. The repair of the car was conducted by them as per instructions and requirement of complainant. If any part of the Car is damaged in accident, then same does not fall within the scope of warranty. The complainant was under legal obligation to make payment of the repair charges and also the cost of damaged parts, which were changed by ops No.1 & 2. The claim, if any, was with the op no.3 and not with them.
3. Opposite party no.3 contested the case by filing separate written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has impleaded Senior Divisional Manager as party, whereas he ought to have impleaded National Insurance Company as a party. It has been submitted that from the information collected from the complainant by the Surveyor, it was revealed that after the accident, water of radiator assy got leaked and vehicle remained in running condition. After sometime when it stopped, it was brought at dealer end for repair. The surveyor when inspected the vehicle, its damages were showing clear outwardly and accordingly the loss was assessed. But after repairing the vehicle, it was noticed that engine of vehicle seized due to lack of proper cooling as radiator assy leaked out. This leakage, which occurred after the accident, comes under “Consequential losses” according to the policy and is not payable. But complainant was adamant for repairing thisloss under the insurance claim. At last only outwardly loss to vehicle was assessed as per policy terms. The loss so calculated by the surveyor is Rs.7581/-. It has been further submitted that complaint has been filed by Sh. Manoj Sharma. He is neither the registered owner nor insured of the vehicle and as such he has got no right to file the present complaint. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed.
4. The parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and various documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Whereas the ops have tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to R5..
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. In view of the specific stand of the opposite party no.3 that Shri Manoj Sharma has filed the present complaint but he is neither registered owner nor insured of the vehicle, we have gone through the relevant documents in this regard on file. The registration certificate of the car in question is in the name of Krishan Gopal as is evident from copy of registration certificate Ex.P8. Similarly, the insurance cover note is also in the name of Krishan Gopal as is evident from Ex.P5. It is not the case of the complainant that he is duly authorized by his father Krishan Gopal to institute the present complaint or he is his power of attorney holder to file the complaint. No such authorization or power of attorney has also been placed on file. So, the complainant Manoj Sharma has no locus standi to file the present complaint and therefore, there is no need to go into the merit of the case. Consequently, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 2.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
