Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/361

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sewa Kunj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

CC No: 361 of 12.05.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 14.01.2015

 

Rajinder Kumar s/o Harbans Lal, Resident of 1108, Street No.4, Krishna Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Sewa Kunj Motor Pvt. Ltd. (Hyundai Motors), G.T.Road, Alour Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

2. Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             … Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate for OP1.

                   Complaint against OP2 was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated

28.05.2014.

                   

                        ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Rajinder Kumar s/o Harbans Lal, Resident of 1108, Street No.4, Krishna Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Sewa Kunj Motor Pvt. Ltd. (Hyundai Motors), G.T.Road, Alour Khanna, District Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager and others (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to refund the bill amount of Rs.51,642/, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant on account of causing undue mental and physical harassment and torture alongwith any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased Hyundai Motor Car bearing registration no.PB-26F-9277 bearing engine no.D4FCBU007913, Chassis no.MALBR51 SLBM 358238J from OP1 and OP1 provided insurance policy of the above said car with the OP2 i.e. Tata AIG Insurance Company. On 06.03.14, unfortunately, the car of the complainant was met with an accident in the area of Doraha, District Ludhiana and on the same day, the complainant informed to the OP1 and handed over the damaged car with OP1, after towing the same, but OP1 never taken any heed and the job card was prepared on 08.03.14. Promising date was also filled by the workers of OP1 as 10.04.14 without informing the complainant and even after 2 or 3 days, the son of the complainant namely Vikas Mann visited the workshop of OP1 in routine and show his desire to handover the car as soon as possible to the complainant, but all the time workers of OP1 made lame excuse. Due to that act of the OPs, the son of the complainant namely Pankash Mann goes to the mental tension and become ill and he was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 22.04.14 and discharged on 24.04.14. It is pertinent to mention here that after that the son of the complainant filed a complaint against OP1 before the Head Office of both the OPs despite that OP1 and OP2 never taken any heed and the complainant approached several times before the workers of the OP1. The surveyor of the OP2 was also met with the OP1 and click photographs of all the articles/parts which were installed/replaced in the car of the complainant and one photograph of parts device Assy Swirl amounting about Rs.23,000/- was never sent to the surveyor. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP1 demanded Rs.51,642/- from the complainant and the same was paid by the complainant on 25.4.14, then they handed-over the car to the complainant. After receiving the car, complainant came to know that switch/nob of the AC was intentionally broken by the workers and they also charged extra from the complainant. When the complainant disclosed this fact to the workers as well as Branch Manager of the OP1, they flatly refused to repair the switch of AC and also refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. the answering OP has already carried out the necessary repairs as per the job work assigned to them and after effecting the said repairs, the complainant took the delivery of the car in satisfactory condition. The present complaint is nothing, but as tactic adopted by the complainant to evade his liability to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,818/- on account of repair charges, to cause harassment to the answering OP and to extract money in an illegal manner. The complainant is not entitled to seek any relief from this Hon’ble Forum, because the complainant has come to this Forum with soiled hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the car make Hyundai bearing registration no.PB-26F-9277 from OP1. As regards the insurance policy, the same was got issued by the complainant at his own. No copy of the policy has been supplied to the answering OP. Further submitted that it is correct that job card was prepared on 8.3.14. The car was handed over to the answering OPs for repair on 8.3.14 and on the same day, job card was prepared and as per the job card, repairs were carried out and the date of delivery of the car was roughly estimated as 10.04.14 meaning thereby that the car was to be delivered to the complainant after carrying out the complete repairs as per job work. After the completion of job work, the answering OPs intimated the complainant to lift the car on payment of requisite charges, but the complainant came to the answering OP only 25.4.14 and took the delivery of the car in satisfactory condition. Further submitted that as a matter of fact, no son of the complainant has ever visited the OP1 to take the delivery of the car nor there was any occasion for the same as after carrying on the necessary repairs, due intimation was given to the complainant, but the complainant did not come immediately to lift the car on payment of requisite charges. The complainant came to the OP1 on 23.4.14 and took the delivery of the car in a satisfactory condition. Even after taking the delivery of the car, the complainant did not point out any defect qua the repairs effected by the answering OP nor any such notice was served upon the answering OP. A complaint was made by the son of the complainant, but the same was found to be false. When the car of the complainant was reported to have met with an accident, the answering OPs immediately appointed the surveyor to inspect the vehicle and it was the surveyor, who as per his knowledge and expertise took photographs of the damaged car and prepared the estimate of expenses to be incurred on the vehicle for such repairs. Further it is not denied that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.51,642/- and the remaining amount was paid by the insurance company as per terms of the policy. Prior intimation regarding payment of the expenses to be paid by the complainant and insurance company was given to the complainant. Denying all other allegations of the complaint, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also placed on documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Behal, General Manager, Sewakunj Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T.Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also placed on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

5.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of OP1 and also perused the entire record before us.

6.                 Ld. counsel for complainant has strongly contended that complainant is the owner of the Hyundai car bearing registration no.PB-26F-9277, which was insured with OP2 i.e. Tata AIG Insurance Company. It is further proved on record that on 6.3.14 the car of the complainant met with an accident in the area of Doraha, District Ludhiana and the said car was handed-over to OP1 in a damaged condition and job card was prepared on 8.3.14 and promising date was filled as 10.04.14. It is further proved that due to non-delivery of the vehicle son of the complainant namely Sh.Pankash Mann goes to mental tension and become ill and was got admitted in Apollo Hospital on 22.04.14 and discharged on 24.04.14 and complainant spent a lot of money on the treatment of his son. Further contended that OP1 click photographs of all the articles/parts which were installed/replaced in the car of the complainant and one photograph of parts device Assy Swirl amounting to Rs.23,000/- was never sent to the surveyor and OP1 demanded Rs.51,642/- from the complainant and same was paid by the complainant on 25.04.14, then they hand-over the car to the complainant. After receiving the car complainant came to know that workers of the OP1 never provided the good services even with malafide intention the switch/nob of the AC has intentionally been broken by the workers and they also charged extra from the complainant.

7.                On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has filed written arguments, wherein reiterated the same facts, as narrated in the written statement and referred Account statement Ex.R1 and Bill/Invoice Ex.R3. It has also been submitted that no alleged photograph was ever taken by OP1 and the surveyor had taken the photographs and only then the insurance company had approved the payment of Rs.83,608/-, which was deducted from the total amount chargeable from the complainant and the same is also reflected in the e-mail dated 25.4.14 sent by the surveyor of the insurance company to OP1. The complainant had paid the amount of Rs.51,642/- and the remaining amount was paid by the insurance company as per terms of the policy.

8.                It is undisputed fact that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 6.3.14 and the vehicle of the complainant was taken to OP1 for repair, after towing the same and job card was prepared on 8.3.14 and due intimation was given to the insurance company. Claim was lodged with the OP2, which was registered and processed and surveyor was appointed and claim was settled and paid by the OPs to the tune of Rs.83,608/- to the repairers and amount of Rs.51,642/- was charged from the complainant against the total bill of Rs.1,47,068/-.

9.                The perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant reveals that first allegation of the complainant is that due to non-delivery of the vehicle son of the complainant Sh.Pankash Mann goes to the mental tension and become ill and he was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 22.04.14 and discharged on 24.04.14 and spent a lot of money for the treatment of his son. But perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any documents, from which, it could be presumed that there was close proximity of the case of mental tension of the son of the complainant with non-delivery of the vehicle, after repair. As such, this plea of the complainant appears to be devoid of any merit. The second plea of the complainant is that the complainant met with the surveyor of OP2, who disclosed that OP1 click photographs of all the articles/parts, which were installed/replaced in the car of the complainant and one photograph of parts device Assy Swirl amounting about Rs.23,000/- was never sent to the surveyor. On the other hand, there is plea of OP1 that it was not a legal obligation on the part of the OP1 to take the alleged photograph of parts device Assy Swirl amounting about Rs.23,000/-. The perusal of the complaint reveals that it is specific version of the complainant that amount of Rs.83,608/- was paid by OP2 to the OP1. It is also evident from the copy of the statement of account Ex.R1. Further Ex.R2 mail sent to complainant by Sh.Dinesh Verma, Surveyor of Tata AIG Accidental Insurance reveals that “based upon the discussion held at Sewakunj Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 23.04.14 regarding the Swirl Assly, as already discussed in the trailing mails. It was decided not to allow the said component. The bill was received on 23.04.14 in the evening. Thus, the assessment arrived at after non-consideration of the Swirl Assly is Rs.83,608/-, which is net payable to the Repairers. An amount of Rs.51,642/- may be charged from the insured against a bill of Rs.1,47,068/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy/vehicular documents”. So, it appears that the matter is very much within the knowledge of surveyor, who after all these facts have recommended the claim for Rs.83,608/- and recommended Rs.51,642/- may be charged from the insured against a bill of Rs.1,47,068/-, subject to terms and conditions of the policy/vehicular documents. The record further reveals that complainant neither moved an application to the insurance company for the re-assessment of the loss nor moved any application before this Forum to re-examination of the claim by the insurance company. Rather the complainant had withdrawn his complaint against OP2, vide their statement dated 28.05.14 due to the reason best known to him. This plea of complainant also appears to be devoid of any merit. The 3^rd contention of the complainant is qua the breakage of the switch/nob of the AC, which as per the contentions of the complainant was broken by the workers of OP1. But perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that complainant has not placed on record any such document as well as opinion of expert, from which, it can be presumed that switch/nob of the AC was ever broken by the employee of the OP1 during the repair. This contention of the complainant also appears to be devoid of any merit.

10.              In view of the above discussion, complainant has failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:14.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh