Delhi

North East

CC/229/2018

Sh. Riyaz Ahmed Bakshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 229/18

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Riyaz Ahmad Bakshi, S/o Sh. Vakil Ahmad Bakshi, R/o B-25, Gali No. 3, B Block, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara, Delhi 110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.         3.	T.R Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd., Showroom & Workshop, East. Gokulpur, Main Wazirabad Road, Delhi 110094   Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., Head office 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070   United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, Scope Minar Complex Core 1-4, Second Floor, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi 110092		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		01.11.2018 09.01.2024 25.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that an agent of Opposite Party No. 1 introduced a new Maruti Celerio Zxt AMT car and disclosed that it was a very technically sound car and at least upto five years it would not create any trouble. On assurance of the Opposite Party No. 1, Complainant had booked the said car in the month of October 2016 for a sum of Rs. 5,33,586/- and the same was delivered on 13.11.2016. Complainant stated that he paid a sum of Rs. 7,098.96 on 17.11.2016 for getting extended warranty and the same was valid upto 17.11.2020 or upto 80,000 Kms whichever was earlier. On 20.11.2016 the terms and conditions and certificate of the extended warranty was handed over to the Complainant. Complainant stated that after purchasing the said car, he did not feel comfortable and found intermittent blinking of star shaped orange colour indicator, sudden obstruction in brake and strange sound in engine. Complainant stated that he met official of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and disclosed all these defects but reasons of these defects could not be found and they failed to resolve the problem and suggest to wait for 3-4 services of car and told that the said problem would be automatically resolved. On 22.08.2018, the Complainant was ready to join a seminar and he was trying to start the car but after lots of effort the car could not start. Complainant inspected the car and suddenly he found that there was a leakage in gear oil. Complainant stated that he towed the car to service centre and discussed the problem to service engineer and they told that they would call him after inspection of the car and on the assurance of Opposite Party No. 1 he left the car in service centre. On 06.09.2018, Complainant received an email from Mr. Pradeep Sharma stating therein that the AMT actuator assy was bitten by rats and due to which transmission oil was drained out and the AMT actuator assy needed to be replaced and could not be covered U/W as per the warranty policy but the same could be claimed under insurance policy and survey was already done and the approval from the insurance company was awaited for want of some papers from the Complainant and as soon as the approval was received the repair would be completed. After that the Complainant reached the service centre and filled and signature the claim form and surveyor of the insurance company survey the vehicle without approval of the Complainant. On 18.09.2018, Complainant received an email from the insurance company with remarks “Dear, today, I have checked the said vehicle in dismantle condition. I observed that damage to automatic transmission actuator is not due to rat biting. The claim is relevant. Hence, not cover in insurance policy.” Complainant stated that the opinion of GM service and surveyor and lost assessor is totally different and service centre deliberately dismantled (AMT) with malafide intention to refuse extended warranty. Complainant stated that service centre of Opposite Party No. 2 illegally demanded Rs. 80,000/- from the Complainant and after that they would hand over the said car to the Complainant but Complainant refused the illegal demand and now the car was lying in dismantle position in service centre at Gokulpuri, Delhi. A legal notice dated 11.10.2018 sent to the Opposite Parties but they failed to respond. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to repair/resolve the problem of the car within extended warranty and change the AMT box free of cost and handover the car in working condition. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the car of the Complainant lying in its workshop. It is stated that the car was handed over by the Complainant with a help of a crane. It is stated that the fault of the car was not covered under warranty. It is stated that the Complainant has shown his unwillingness to get the car repaired by making payment. The insurance company has also refused to make payment. The Complainant was advised to get the car repaired on making payment. It stated that on 18.09.2018, the surveyor inspected the car and rejected the claim. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied by Opposite Party No. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant sent his vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 on 26.08.2018. It was reported that there was leakage of transmission oil. The vehicle was inspected and it was found that there was external cut/damage in the AMT unit leading to the fluid leakage which was caused due to the rat bite. It is stated that the case is not covered under warranty. It is denied that Opposite Party No. 1 is the authorized agent of Opposite Party No. 2. It is stated that Opposite Party No. 1 is an independent entity and the relationship between the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 1 is that of principal to principal basis. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is admitted that the car of the Complainant was insured by it for the period from 24.11.2017 to 13.11.2018. The service centre informed the Complainant that AMT actuator was bitten by rats due to which there was leakage of transmission oil. The surveyor of Opposite Party No. 3 inspected the said vehicle and reported that:-

a) The insured did not confirm the cause of accident in the claim form.

b) After proper dismantling of the said part, I observed no mark of rat biting.

C) I also checked for under carriage damage or any external impact and found intact.

d) The damage to the part is not due to covered peril of policy, hence, the claim may be closed without payment.

5. After going through the above survey report, the insurance company repudiated the claim and treated the claim as No Claim, because the alleged losses to that insured vehicle have not been caused by any of the insured perils. The insurance company intimated the same to the Complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

6. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Anil Mishra, Manager Accounts of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

9. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of                Shri Shubham Jhamb, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 have been supported.
10. Despite grant of opportunities, Opposite Party No. 3 did not file the evidence. Therefore, the right to file the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 has been closed vide order dated 02.02.2023.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 to address the arguments. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a car from Opposite Party No. 1 on 13.11.2016. His case is that on 17.11.2016 he paid Rs. 7908.96 and purchased the extended warranty of the said car which was valid till 17.11.2020 or 80,000 Kms whichever was earlier. His case is that the car was troubling him but on 22.08.2018, the car could not start and he found that there was gear oil leakage in the car. He towed the car to the service centre of the Opposite Party No. 1. His case is that his car was under warranty period and despite that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not carry out the necessary repair. His case is that the Opposite Party No. 1 demanded Rs. 80,000/- for carrying out repair in the car. His case is that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not carry out the repair on false pretext that the wires were cut by the rat and so the repair could not be done under warranty. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company also rejected his claim on the ground that there was no rat biting with the wires etc. of the car and the repair was required to be done by Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that as per the surveyor report the surveyor found that the car was found in dismantled condition while he inspected the same in the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1.
12. Now, the question is that whether the damage was done due to the rat biting. In this regard, the Opposite Party No. 1 has led evidence that on inspection, engineers of Opposite Party No. 1 found that AMT actuator assembly was bitten by rats. In this regard no evidence has been led as to who were the engineers and their report has also not been proved in accordance with law. No evidence has been led on which basis the said engineers came to the conclusion that the damage to the car took place due to the rat biting. It is also important to be noted that the Complainant in his complaint has stated that the surveyor of the Opposite Party No. 3 found the car in the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 in dismantled condition. In its written statement, the Opposite Party No. 1 has not denied this assertion. The Opposite Party No. 1 has also not led evidence that the car of the Complainant was not in dismantled condition at the time of the survey conducted by the surveyor of Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 3 in its written statement has stated that the car was found in dismantled condition while the survey was conducted in the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. Therefore, it is held that the car had been dismantled in the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. No explanation has been given as to why the car was dismantled in its workshop. As discussed, above it has been held that the Opposite Party No. 1 did not prove that the damage to the car was done due to the rat biting.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1. Therefore, the complaint is allowed.
14. The perusal of the file shows that on 14.08.2019 it was confirmed that the Complainant made a payment of Rs. 70,000/- plus Rs. 9,700/- (total payment Rs. 79,700/-). It is also revealed from the order sheet dated 14.08.2019 that the car was in running condition. This payment was made by the Complainant on 23.06.2019 and the car was sent to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1 in the month of August 2018 and thus the Complainant could not use his car for about 10 months. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 1 is ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Complainant has also made payment of Rs. 79,700/- on account of the repair of the car. The Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay the said amount i.e. Rs. 79,700/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % from 23.06.2019 till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest  @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
15. Order announced on 25.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President