DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Nitin Pargal s/o Sh. Subash Pargal, R/o H.No. 3118, 1^st Floor, Sector 51-D, Ajanta Society, Chandigarh.

---Complainant

Vs

[1]  Sukhjinder Singh s/o Shri Mewa Singh, R/o House No. 339, Deep complex, Hallo Majra, Chandigarh;

[2]  Smt. Reena W/o Shri Sukhjinder Singh, both residents of House No. 339, Deep Complex, Hallo Majra, Chandigarh.

[3]  Pritam Singh; Partner of Capital Car Bazar, SCO No. 11, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

[4]  Pardeep Chabra, Partner of Capital Car Bazar, SCO No. 11, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

[5]  IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: Iffco Sadan C1 Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110017, through its Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

[6]  Chanan Ram s/o Dalip Chand, H.No. 1293, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

---- Proforma Opposite Party

BEFORE:    SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA             PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Ankur Gupta, Proxy Counsel for

Sh. Raj Karan, Counsel for Opposite Party No.5.

Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.        The cause of this lis is the non-payment of insurance claim by the Opposite Party No.5 against the sale of a car by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 to the Complainant.

          Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased a VERNA CRDI car (2008 Model) bearing Regn. No. CH-04-C-4769, Chassis No. 046867, Engine No. 90697 for a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 13.6.2011. The car was purchased through Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4, who are running a business of sale & purchase of old cars on commission basis in the name & style Capital Car Bazar. As per the Complainant, Rs.3,45,000/- was given vide Cheque to Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the account of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has stated that he gave Rs.40,000/- to Opposite Party No.3 and Rs.50,000/- to Opposite Party No.4 as balance payment of the purchase amount. Details of payments as well as receipts are from Annexure C-1 to C-4. As per the cover note with the Complainant, the car was insured by Opposite Party No. 5.

          Unfortunately, on 05.07.2011, the car met with an accident at Delhi and was taken to Hyundai Motors India Ltd., New Delhi, for repair. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,318/- for the repair (Bill Annex. C-4/A). The Complainant has stated that when he approached the insurance company for appointment of Surveyor to access the repair, the insurance company disclosed that the vehicle was already accidented and full damage insured amount had already been paid to the previous owner of the car. The Complainant, thus, now realized that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 had cheated him by selling a fully damaged car, after purchasing it from its previous owner Sh.Chanan Ram (Opposite Party No.6). The insurance company had already paid the full damaged value to Sh.Chanan Ram against the accidented vehicle. The owner has been given permission to retain the scrap. The insurance company (Opposite Party No.5) had accordingly refused to cover the car for any further risk or claim.

          Legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4 have been placed on record. As also, a complaint to the Sr. Supdt. of Police, U.T. Chandigarh regarding sale of an accidented car, as the fact about the accident and payment from the insurance company had not been disclosed by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, at the time of sale as also, the fact that the insurance policy had already lapsed.

          The Complainant has thus filed this complaint against all the Opposite Parties, with a claim for Rs.5,40,000/- which is the consideration paid by him, to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, at the time of purchase of the car, which was according to him actually a scrap. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 be directed to refund the amount paid, along with interest @18% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment & mental agony. The Complainant has also prayed that Opposite Party No.5 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,918/- along with interest.  

2.        Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte on 26.12.2011.

          As Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 6 were not being served, they were served through publication dated 29.05.2012 in the newspaper “Daily Chardikala”. But as none appeared on their behalf, despite publication, they were proceeded ex-parte on 14.06.2012.

3.        The Opposite Party No.5 in reply has admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the vehicle in question. Opposite Party No.5 has also admitted that the vehicle was registered in the name of Opposite Party No.6 (Chanan Ram). When the said car met with an accident and the claim was submitted, the answering Opposite Party processed the claim and paid a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to Opposite Party No.6 towards full and final settlement of the claim. This claim was on total loss basis. Copies of the discharge voucher as well as the undertaking-cum-affidavit of the Owner (Opposite Party No.6) have been placed on record as Annexure R-5/1 (colly). The claim was thus, finally settled by taking into consideration the insured declared value less the value of salvage. 

          On merits, Opposite Party No. 5 has submitted that Para 1 to 3 and Para 5 to 10 which deals with allegations of wrong selling, cheating and fraud do not relate to them. The issuance of policy for the car has been admitted in the name of Chanan Ram (Opposite Party No.6). Opposite Party No. 5 has also admitted that a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- has been paid to the said Chanan Ram as full and final settlement after the accident. As per the agreed terms, the salvage of the vehicle was retained by the owner i.e. Opposite Party No.6. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.        We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned proxy counsel for Opposite Party No.5 and have perused the record.

6.        The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a VERNA CRDI car (2008 Model) bearing Regn. No. CH-04-C-4769 on 13.06.2011 from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, through Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 for a consideration of Rs.5,40,000/-. Later, when there was an accident on 5.7.2011, the insurance company (Opposite Party No.5) which had issued insurance in the name of the Owner (Opposite Party No.6) refused to make payment of the claim to the Complainant for Rs.4319/-, even though it was within the period of insurance. As per the averments of the Opposite Party No.5 which is also supported by an affidavit of the owner of the vehicle (Opposite Party No.6), the car had been damaged in an accident and after the accident; the claim of the owner was settled for Rs.1,95,000/- towards full & final settlement. The scrap/salvage had been retained by the Owner. It appears from the facts that the owner of the vehicle (Opposite Party No.6) has further sold the vehicle. The Complainant has purchased the vehicle from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, through Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. The car was obviously brought to a good running condition before sale; otherwise the Complainant would obviously not have purchased the car.

7.        The registration certification of the vehicle is not on record to show the name of the actual owner of the vehicle on the date of purchase by the Complainant, as well as on the date of accident. The insurance was in the name of Opposite Party No. 6, but the insurance company has already exonerated itself from making further payment after making full and final settlement for the vehicle.

8.        Interestingly, the complete complaint relates to allegations about non-payment of repair charges by the insurance company for an insurance which according to the Complainant is still operative. The insurance company has refused payment because a full & final settlement has been given to the erstwhile owner. The ‘scrap’ car has been refurbished by the owner and has been sold to the Complainant. The Complainant has bought the car in good faith from Opposite Party No.1. Interestingly, though the situation is seemingly sad and frustrating for the Complainant, but before granting any relief this Forum has to look into any alleged defects/ faults in the vehicle to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant. The Complainant has not stated that the car is non-functional or problematic in driving.

9.        The scope of this complaint thus goes beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we can only look into allegations of faults, imperfection or defect in the vehicle sold. As there is no such allegation, the complaint is not maintainable, even though Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and 6 have not appeared before this Forum. The Complainant has also leveled allegations of fraud and cheating in the complaint against the Opposite Parties. These allegations are again beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.       In view of the above, without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case or fraud committed, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the complaint as it is beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegations would require detailed oral as well as documentary evidence, cross-examinations of witnesses etc. to prove the loss suffered/ fraud, if any. We accordingly dismiss the complaint. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance against the Opposite Parties. No cost. 

11.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th October, 2012.                                             

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

 MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

“Dutt”