Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/69/2021

Kisore - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renaults india - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Vashisth

26 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint Case No. : 69 of 2021

                                                                   Date of Institution    : 01.04.2021

                                                                   Date of decision:      : 26.11.2024

 

Kishore son of Sh. Shibi Ram R/o House No.41, New Lalita Line, Birla Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                                            ...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

 

1. Renault India Private Limited, Branch Office situated at Dabur Building, Ground Floor, Plot No.11, Sector 32, Industrial Area, Gurugram, through its authorized agent/Manager.
2. Lohachab Krishna Motors Private Limited, Near Central School, Opposite Hunamal Piau, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani (authorized agent/dealer of OP No.1.).
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office situated at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Parbhadevi, Mumbai-400025.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Ashok Kumar Vashistha, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Vikas Nagar, Advocate for OP No.1.

                    Sh. Mukesh Gulia, Advocate for OP No.2.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant purchased a car Triber  from OP No.2 in Rs.5,89,500/- on 13.11.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle). The vehicle is having registration number HR-16X-4315 and the vehicle was insured with OP No.3 as comprehensively.  It is alleged that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect which was identified by the engineers of the OP No.1 at initial stage on a complaint dated 08.12.2020 qua over heating of engine with extremely loud sound from the exhaust system and engine temperature was also changing rapidly while get checked at authorized workshop at Sitapur Industrial Area, Jaipur (Rajasthan). It is stated that due to said defects in the vehicle, it caught fire while it was being driven by a family friend of complainant Mr. Vishnu and seven other person were also sitting therein and were going to Manali from Bilaspur. It has been submitted that the car got totally burnt and damaged completely and Fire Brigade was called at the spot. Complainant has submitted that no claim of the vehicle was given by the OPs. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, seeking directions against them to pay the purchase price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.6,55,000/- alongwith registration charges. Further to pay Rs.2.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their separate  written statements. OP No.1 taken preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and that complaint has been filed with malafide intent and thus is abuse of process of law and that the answering OP has principal to principal relationship with its dealer i.e. OP No.2. It is clarified that the answering OP is manufacture of the vehicle and thus has no role in after sale and service of the same. On merits, it is submitted that as per vehicle history records, the vehicle was brought to the OP No.2 on 08.12.2020 with the issue of underbody hit of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was always repaired to the satisfaction of complainant and therefore due to accidental service wherein, the oil pan hit, sealing ring related parts were replaced by the authorized service center. It is urged that generally first free service is done at 2000km, however, as an exceptional where the vehicle was drove only 886 km. But during such service, complainant had not mentioned issue of overheating of engine and same can be reiterated from the vehicle service report. As such, denied for any deficiency in service or any negligence on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, deficiency in service, cause of action & locus standi.  On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle of complainant never come back in the service center at any time besides the vehicle last visit at Sitapur Rajasthan for work of B & P but the workshop bill was in cash whereas the insurance is fully facilities i.e. engine protection, consumable, keyloss and zero depreciation but the abovesaid work /repair does not in insurance, as such, the complaint of complainant is liable to be dismissed qua the answering OP. As such, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.3 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, territorial jurisdiction, deficiency in service, cause of action & locus standi and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it is submitted that the vehicle was insured with answering OP for a period 13.11.2020 to 12.11.2021 having an IDV of Rs.5,60,025/-.  It is stated that intimation of fire occurred to the vehicle on 28.12.2020, was received to the answering OP on 04.01.2021, upon which, Er. Naveen Kumar was deputed and submitted his report dated 18.02.2021.  it is submitted that manufacturing defect in the vehicle relates to OPs No.1 & 2 and the alleged fire in the vehicle was not covered in the insurance policy, therefore, the claim being not payable was repudiated vide letter dated 16.03.2021. As such, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                 Complainant in evidence tendered his affidavit Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-15 and closed the evidence on 08.05.2023.

6.                 On the other side, Ld. Counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Abha Tiwari, Senior Manager, Legal as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. A1 to Ex. A2 and closed the evidence on 02.07.2024.

7.                 Ld. Counsel for OP No.2 adopted its written statement as in evidence also and closed the evidence on 02.07.2024.

8.                 Ld. Counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Rohan Mishra, authorized signatory of OP company alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on 02.07.2024.

9.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld.  Counsel for complainant has also placed reliance on case laws delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2723 of 2012 titeld Dharambir Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. decided on 07.11.2022 and Revision Petition No.1053 of 2016 titled Nuzhat Vs. Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. decided on 03.12.2019.

10.               At the outset, it is admitted by OP No.3 insurance company that the vehicle was insured with it for a period from 13.11.2020 to 12.11.2021 for an IDV of Rs.5,60,025/-.  It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased by complainant from OP No.2 and manufactured by OP No.1. The purchase of vehicle and ownership of complainant over it, is proved on record from document Annexure C-1.  Copy of driving license (Annexure C-6) proves that Mr. Vishnu, driver at the time of incident, was authorized to drive the vehicle in question at the time of loss occurred to it. Perusal of claim repudiation letter dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure C-R-5) reveals that claim to complainant by OP No.3 insurance company was denied for the following reasons:-

“Misrepresentation of facts, at the time of loss your vehicle was carrying more than the registered seating capacity in the vehicle, this is violation of policy? limitation to use? Also vehicle was used out of the scope of the private car package policy (Hire or reward) which is the exclusion under? limitation to use.”

11.               OP No.3 insurance company in order to authenticate the repudiation letter has relied upon surveyor’s report (Annexure R-2) whereby it reveals that at the time of incident there were 8 persons travelling in the vehicle   (7+1 driver).  The OP insurance company has also placed on record Motor Final Survey Report ( Annexure R-3), whereby  liability under the subject policy of insurance has been assessed to Rs.5,62,514/-.

12.               After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and going through the record, we have observed that at the time of loss to the vehicle, it was under insurance cover as was paid by complainant for Add On Premium (Annexure R-1) wherein consumables, engine protection, key loss cover and Zero Depreciation was included.  Further, the vehicle was carrying eight person against the capacity of 7 person. It is further observed that seating of 8 person in the vehicle was not a reason for getting fire in the vehicle and thereby loss to it.  Perusal of photographs Annexure C-7 to Annexure C-10 clearly reveals that the vehicle was total damaged.  Perusal of repairs bills issued by Partap Cars Pvt. Ltd. Sitapur, Jaipur (Annexure C-2), it reveals that there was also problem in the vehicle piror to the present incident of fire. From DDR report (Annexure C-4) and Fire Brigade Certificate (Annexure C-5) issued by Bilaspur Centre (HP), it is clear that the loss caused to the vehicle was from fire to it.  From the investiatio report, it is evident that there was 8 person seating in the vehicle at the time of incident which is violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy. However, it is pertinent to mention here that as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Khandelwal  Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2008, decided on 08.05.2008, the repudiation was not justified, wherein it is observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)(d)-Insurance Claim-Insured vehicle stolen-Claim was repudiated on the ground that terms and condition of policy were violated –State Commission settled claim on non-standard basis directing insurance company to pay 75% of claim amount which was upheld by National Commission giving rise to present civil appeal-Held, Claim cannot be repudiated for breach of policy condition as nature of used of vehicle cannot be taken into consideration-Order passed by Consumer Fora upheld.”

12.               In view of the above discussion, we have come to conclusion that end of justice, would be met if claim of complainant is decided on non-standard basis against the OP Insurance company, at 75% of IDV of the vehicle. As, IDV of the vehicle was Rs.5,60,025/-, hence, the complainant is entitled to Rs.4,20,018/- from OP insurance company. We further conclude that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by it despite such fact brought into their notice. Therefore, OP No.1 being manufactured of the vehicle is liable to pay 25% of the IDV which comes to Rs.1,40,006/-. It is further observed that repudiation of the claim by OP insurance company was not reasonable and justified in the circumstances of the present case. This conduct of OP No.3 must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides monetary loss. The case laws relied upon by the complainant side are helpful in deciding the present case. Hence, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment from OP No.3. As such, the  complaint is allowed and OP No.1 and OP No.3 are directed to comply with the following directions within forty days from the date of this order:-

(i)       OP No.3, to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,018/- (Rs. Four lac twenty thousand eighteen) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization subject to execution of letter of Subrogation in favour of OP insurance company and all other relevant documents qua transfer of vehicle in question in favour of the OP insurance company by the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(ii)      OP No.3, also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation for harassment.

 (iii)    OP No.3, further to pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

(iv)     OP No.1, to pay Rs.1,40,006/- (Rs. one lac forty thousand six) to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

                    In case of default, the amounts mentioned in paras no.(i) & (iv) shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties concerned be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:26.11.2024.