BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.542 of 2014
Date of institution: 27.08.2014
Date of Decision: 05.10.2015
Mohit Malik son of Subhash Malik, resident of House No.1785, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., Showroom-cum-Workshop, C-43 Industrial Area, Phase-3, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 350-351-352, 1st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034.
3. Mr. Manik, Surveyor of Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 350-351-352, 1st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034.
(Name of OP No.3 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 25.03.2015).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Ankur Bali, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Name of OP No.3 deleted.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the OPs to:
(a) pay him Rs.1.00 lac for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony.
(b) pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The case of the complainant is that he is owner of Ford Figo car No.CH-01-AF-2423. The car met with an accident on 28.04.2014 at Sector 9, Chandigarh. DDR dated 28.04.2014 was lodged with the police. The car of the complainant was taken to OP No.1 by calling a recovery crane from Mann Recovery Services by paying Rs.800/-. Thereafter job card dated 05.05.2014 was prepared by OP No.1.
The complainant supplied all the documents to OP No.1 on the same day. OP No.1 has not repaired the vehicle properly as it has replaced the damaged parts with defective parts on the pretext that the same are original ones. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs. OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of its written statement has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. The complainant at the time of handing over the vehicle failed to provide necessary documents enabling OP No.2 to allow the insurance claim of the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant was repaired to his full satisfaction. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle was ready for delivery on the date fixed, but due to delay in insurance clearance it could not be delivered to the complainant. Upon clearance of insurance claim on 12.05.2014 the vehicle was delivered on the same day to the complainant. The complainant is concocting false and frivolous story just to prejudice the rights of the Ops. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. None appeared for OP No.2 despite service and presuming its absence as willful, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2015.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.
5. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Varinder Singh Saluja, its Ex.OP-1/1.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP No.1 and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.
7. The insurance of the car of the complainant by OP No.2 and the currency of the same is not disputed. The factum of accident of the car on 28.04.2014 is admitted. The opening of job card dated 28.04.2014 by OP No.1 for effecting the repairs and replacement of the damaged parts by OP No.1 is also not disputed wherein the OP No.1 has promised to make the delivery of the vehicle on 05.05.2014 with estimation amount as ‘00’. As per the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle to OP No.1 on 05.05.2014 he has supplied all the necessary documents as per Ex.C-5 to OP No.1 for realization of his claim against the insurance policy from OP No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that against the promised date of delivery of 05.05.2014, there is delay of 7 days as the vehicle has been delivered to him on 12.05.2014 and due to this delay the complainant has suffered inconvenience and mental agony and further as per the complainant even after effecting the repairs and replacement of the defective parts, it has been found that the paint of the front bumper is chipping off and the upper roof of the car shows that the areal of the has not been replaced with the new one. Therefore, the Ops have failed to repair the front bumper properly and replace the defective part with the new one and thus indulged into deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8. OP No.1 has admitted having received the vehicle for repairs and further admitted issuance of job card Ex.C-5. However, it has denied delay in delivery which is not attributable to it. As per OP No.1 the delay in delivery has been caused due to non timely clearance of insurance which has come to it on 12.05.2014 and the vehicle has been delivered to the complainant on the same day. Regarding other allegations i.e. chipping of the paint from the bumper and replacement of areal with the old one, OP No.1 has taken a categoric stand that the complainant has given his own satisfactory report while taking the delivery of vehicle as is evident from Ex.OP-1/8. Therefore, these allegations are false and fabricated.
9. The complainant’s main grievance, therefore, is delay in delivery of vehicle on 12.05.2014 against promised date of delivery of 05.05.2014 which is not attributable to OP No.1 as it is amply evident that the complainant has submitted the declaration, undertaking, customer information documents etc. i.e. all documents relating to availing of cashless facility from the insurance company with OP No.1 and OP No.1 has received the intimation from OP no.2 vide e-mail dated 12.05.2014 at 3.57 PM as is evident from Ex.OP-1/5 and without any fail thereafter the vehicle has been released to the complainant on the same day as is evident from delivery note Ex.OP-1/8. Thus the complainant has failed to prove his grievance against OP No.1.
10. OP No.2 since is exparte and has not put up its version and evidence to show whether there is any delay in processing the claim on its part is inordinate or procedural. Even if OP No.2 has not submitted its version, the documents submitted by the complainant amply shows that the claim documents have been submitted by the complainant on 28.04.2014 to OP No.1 and within a span of 15 days the claim has been honoured by the OP No.2. Therefore, we do not find anything amiss on the part of OP No.2 as well.
11. Since the complainant has given his satisfactory note Ex.OP-1/8 regarding the repairs and received the vehicle in good condition and failed parts have also been received by him. At this belated stage after signing the satisfactory note, the complainant cannot raise the objection of quality of repairs and replacement of the failed parts.
12. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his complaint on account of delay in delivery against the promised date and other issues of inferior quality of workmanship and replacement of the broken parts with the old parts.
13. Thus the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
October 05, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
