Delhi

North East

CC/446/2015

Sanjay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajandra Motors Work Shop - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 446/15

 

		Sanjay S/o Shri Chhida Lal, W-187, Chandre Shekhar Azad Gali-5, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi 110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	Rajandre Motors Workshop A-17, DSIDC Ind. Area, Jhilmil, Delhi 110095   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Mandir, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		13.11.2015 05.01.2024 14.02.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 03.11.2013, Complainant purchased a Honda Bike Dream Yuga bearing no. DL 5S 5619 from the Opposite Party No. 1. The warranty of the said vehicle was for 5 years for which Complainant paid additional money. On 05.07.2015, Complainant met with an accident due to which the vehicle of the Complainant got damaged from the front side. On 12.07.2015, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for repairing of the said damaged vehicle and for regular service. A job sheet was issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No. 1 and he was asked to contact the claim department of the Opposite Party No. 1. A surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and the surveyor noted down the necessary details regarding the claim and asked the Complainant to hand over the said bike for routine service. Complainant stated that at the time of hand over the said bike the battery and fuel meter was working properly and was in good condition. Complainant stated that he was told that it will take about 10-12 days to repair the said bike. After 15 days Complainant visited the Opposite Party No. 1 but said bike was not ready and Opposite Party No. 1 told that it would take some more time. Complainant visited several time to enquire about the condition of the said vehicle but Opposite Party No. 1 did not inform about the readiness of the said vehicle.  On 11.09.2015, when Complainant went to take the delivery of the said vehicle then Complainant paid Rs. 10,100/- and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Insurer paid Rs. 18,584/-. Thereafter, when the Complainant checked the bike then electric self was not working and on driving the vehicle it was found that fuel meter was also not working properly. Complainant reported the said matter to the concerned authority. After that Opposite Party No. 1 sent two employees to check and they took the test drive and reported the matter to the concerned person. Complainant asked one of the employees of Opposite Party No. 1 to check whether the battery was installed or not and on checking, the Complainant was told that the battery was weak and it would be correct automatically when Complainant would start working properly after the bike was driven for some time. On comparing the assessment sheet of claim it was found that claim was not approved for the damaged parts. On 19.10.2015, Complainant again reported the matter through a written complaint to the concerned authority and handed over the bike for inspection in which problem of non working of electric self, non working of battery and fuel meter bulb was reported. On 21.10.2015, Complainant went to take the delivery of the said vehicle then he was told that the battery and battery charger had been damaged and Opposite Party No. 1 denied for changing the battery and battery charger however it falls under the warranty period. Complainant sent a final reminder on 30.10.2015 for changing the defective parts but Opposite Party No. 1 did not give any reply.  Complainant claimed that the fuel meter, battery and battery charger had damaged due to negligence of Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant has prayed to replace the defective items with new one by the Opposite Party No. 1 and direct the Opposite Party No. 2 to approve the claim of damaged parts. Complainant also prayed that meter should be replaced with new one if the claim had already been approved and above mentioned parts come under warranty period therefore should be replaced with new one and Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the bike of the Complainant was badly damaged in the accident. The bike was not in running condition. Therefore, working of battery could not be checked when the bike was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party   No. 1. It is also denied that needle of the fuel tank was not working. It is stated that when the Complainant took the delivery of the bike after the accidental care at that point of time he did not complaint about the battery and fuel meter meaning thereby the same were ok at that time. In case the Complainant was facing any problem in the battery or fuel meter he would have contacted the Opposite Party No. 1 within 1-2 days after taking the delivery of the bike. It is stated that battery was not under warranty period and its warranty expires after one year. The Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the vehicle in question was insured with it for the period from 13.07.2015 to 02.11.2015. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied in the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No. 2. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri L.K Thakur, Service Engineer of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Vikash Goyal, Legal Manager, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that his bike met with an accident and he handed over the bike to Opposite Party No. 1 for repair. His case is that the bike remained with Opposite Party No. 1 from 12.07.2015 till 11.09.2015. His case is that during the said two months the battery of his bike and fuel meter needle was damaged due to the negligence of Opposite Party No. 1. His case is also that the battery was under warranty period and therefore Opposite Party No. 1 was supposed to replace the battery. His case is that he also paid Rs. 130/- for changing the fuel meter bulb. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that battery was under warranty for one year. The Complainant has not led any evidence to show that battery was under warranty period at the time of accident.
9. The case of the Complainant as discussed above is that his bike remained with Opposite Party No. 1 for accidental repair for a period of two months and battery of his bike was damaged during the said period when the bike was in the custody of Opposite Party No. 1 for two months, however, the Complainant did not lead any evidence in this regard. Even the affidavit which is filed by him in his evidence does not mention about this fact. He has also not led any evidence that the needle of the fuel meter was not working properly. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their costs.
10. Order announced on 14.02.2024.

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President