Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/363/2014

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swami Auto Sales, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Baljinder Singh

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

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

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/363/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	27/05/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	06/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Pritam Singh, S/o Swaran Singh, R/o H.No.54, Village Kiratpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

……………Complainant

Vs

 

1.   Swami Auto Sales, Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Ambala Road, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

 

2.   Swami Innovative Autos Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

 

3.   Swami Auto Sales, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Limited, Plot No.26, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through it Manager/ Auth. Signatory.

 

4.   The New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO 54-55, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

……………Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:         SH.P.L. AHUJA        PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Tajinder Singh, Advocate
For OPs No.1 & 3	:	Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte
For OP No.4	:	Sh. Kapil Gupta, Advocate

           

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant purchased a Mahindra DI 3200 BS-2 vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 by raising finance from OPs N.2 & 3 and got the same insured with the Opposite Party No.4. During the currency of the aforesaid policy, which was valid from 26.9.2007 to 25.09.2008, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 14.8.2008 and sustained damages. The vehicle was accordingly taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 for repairs. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 repaired the vehicle and raised a demand of Rs.25,000/-, despite the same being insured. Even though the Complainant was ready to make the payment, but the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 insisted on paying the pending installments in lump sum, prior to release of the vehicle. It has been averred that due to the unauthorized detention of the vehicle by OPs No.1 to 3, the Complainant could not earn, to make the payment of the monthly installments of the vehicle. Finding no alternative, the Complainant filed a Civil Suit on 15.01.2009 before the Civil Courts, Panchkula, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Complainant on 26.2.2014, to avail the appropriate remedy. It has been further alleged that since the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have not released the physical possession of the vehicle to the Complainant, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before this Forum, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 28.08.2014.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that after sending the vehicle for accidental repairs to Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant never turned up to get the delivery of the same, after clearing his dues. As such, a registered letter dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure R-2) was sent to him, along with copy of bill, to get the delivery of the vehicle. When the Complainant did not turn up to collect his vehicle, legal notices dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure R-3) and 23.11.2009 (Annexure R-6) were sent to him, calling upon him to pay outstanding amount of Rs.70,288/- (at that time) with parking fee of Rs.200/- per day. However, the Complainant again did not turn up either to clear all his outstanding or to get the delivery of his vehicle. Denying all other allegations Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.4 in its written statement while admitting the factum of insurance of the vehicle has pleaded that no accident took place, as no intimation with regard to any loss to the vehicle in question was given by the Complainant to it. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made by the Opposite Party No.4 for the dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and 4 and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.

 

7.      After considering the entire evidence, we feel that the complaint merits dismissal. The Complainant has alleged that Opposite Party No.4 (Insurance Company) is liable for the claim, but there is no document on record, according to which, any intimation, with regard to any loss caused to the vehicle, in question, has been given by the Complainant, to it. As per the condition of the insurance policy, in the event of claim, notice is to be given, in writing, to the insurance company, immediately, upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage. However, in the present case, the Complainant did not give any such intimation to Opposite Party No.4 regarding the loss to the vehicle. Therefore, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.4 on this ground.

 

8.      So far as the question of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 is concerned, as per his own Complaint, the Complainant handed over the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1, for necessary repairs, and the same was repaired within 03 days. Annexure R-2 is the registered letter, by the Opposite Party No.1, to the Complainant, dated 24.11.2008, regarding repairs done and the balance amount to be paid by him, to collect his vehicle. Further, Annexure R-3 and R-6 are two legal notices dated 11.02.2009 and 23.11.2009 respectively, to deposit the required amount and to take the vehicle. But, no response to Annexure R-2, R-3 and R-6 by the Complainant proves that he himself did not come forward to deposit the repair charges and to take the possession of the vehicle. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, as it was the duty of the Complainant to deposit the repair charges and take the possession of the vehicle in question, but the same was not done. Moreover, the Complainant has himself admitted that he discontinued the payment of the remaining installments of the vehicle in question, therefore, he cannot claim the custody of the vehicle. Hence, the Complainant has utterly failed to prove any deficiency on part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. 

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

 

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

 

Announced

06^th April, 2015                                       

Sd/- 

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT 

 

 

Sd/- 

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER