Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the respondent no.1 herein is authorized Maruti Car dealer of the Respondent no.3 herein from whom complainant herein has purchased a Ritz Model Maruti Car. It is stated that the respondent no.2 herein is also authroised Maruti Car dealer of the respondent no.3. It is stated that the respondent no.4 herein is insurance company through whom Ritz model Maruti Car of the complainant is insured for the repairs/replacements of parts in case of any accident etc with cashless facilities.
2. It is stated that the difference between both authroised dealers of respondent no.3 i.e respondent no.1 & respondent no.2 is that respondent no.1 is not having cashless facility of respondent no.4 for repairs/replacements of parts in case said car meets with an accident etc, but respondentno.2 is having cashless facility of the respondent no.4 for repairs/replacements of parts in case in case said car meets with an accident.
3. It is stated that on 15.07.2009, the complainant purchased a Maruti Car Model Ritz bearing chasis no.114365 and engine no.1250869, hereinafter referred as to ‘said car’ from the respondent no.1, copies of driving licence of the complainant & maintenance service record evidencing date of delivery of said car are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A colly to this complaint.
4. It is stated on 25.07.2009, said car was registered with Delhi Transport Authority vide registration no.DL-8C-NB-6594, copy of registration certificate evidencing registration of said car is annexed hereto and marked as annexure-B to this complainant.
5. It is stated on 20.07.2010, on a premium of Rs.11,800.00 said car was insured by respondent no.4 for a period 20-7-2010 to 19-07.2011, insurance policy no. of respondent no.4 is 311200014860300000 in the name of complainant, copy of proposal form cum cover note for insurance evidencing insurance of said car by respondent no.4 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C to this complainant.
6. It is stated that at the time of purchase of the said car the complainant was assured that the said car is absolutely perfect in respect of its engine and chasis and the said car is sold after it was tested OK by the engineers of the respondent no.1 and 3, the complainant was also given a Warranty book of the respondent no.3 through respondent no1 along with the receipt of payment of costs of the said car. The relevant terms of warranty policy inter alia are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D to this complainant.
7. It is stated that it is a terms of the warranty policy that if said car develops any defect within twenty-four (24) months or 40,000 kilometers (which ever occurs first) from the date of delivery to the first owner then such defect shall be covered under warranty. In such case defective part of the engine or the chassis either would be replaced by a new one or would be repaired in authorized workshop of the respondent no.3 without charging any money for the said replacement of repair.
8. It is stated that in clause 3 of terms of the warranty policy  that if any defects(s) should be found in a Maruti Suzuki vehicle within the terms stipulated above, Maruti Suzuki’s only obligation is to repair or replace it at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, which Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty.
9. It is stated that the complainant also insured said car with cashless facility through respondent no.4, in which inter alia it is a provision that in case of any accident etc if said car needs any repairs/replacements/replacements of parts, then same would be done at any authorized workshop of the respondent no.3 and the cost of said repairs/replacements of parts would be paid by the respondent no.4.
10. It is stated that the said car was services in the workshop of respondent no.1 as per the practice of  the respondent no.3, firstly on the mileage coverage of 5083 Kms on 01.10.2009 vide Job Card no.9005649, secondly on the mileage coverage of 10831 Kms, on 30.01.2010 vide Job card no.9009306.
11. It is stated that on 11.09.2010, while the said car has covered a mileage of 19,915 Kms, it has came into contact of pit formed on the road, thereafter it was noticed that engine oil was coming from engine of the said car, so complainant has taken the said car for check up to examine problem to the workshop of respondent no.1 when it was told to the complainant that it was an accidental case claim of same is covered under insurance policy of respondent no.4, it was told to complainant that respondent no.1 is not having cashless facility for the repairs/replacements of parts at their workshop so, it can be rectified by respondent no.2 after intimation of incident to respondent no.4. Needless to mention that complainant has carried said car to the workshop of respondent no.1 by normal drive.
12. It is stated that on the basis of information of respondent no.1, on 12.09.2010, the complainant has informed to the respondent no.4 for accident of said car, when the respondent no.4 has deputed its surveyor at the workshop of respondent no.2 at Wazirpur, Delhi, where on bringing problems of said car to the notice of the respondent no.2, after mechanical inspection of said car surveyor has recommended for repair of said car to respondent no.2 for chamber hit problem, when as per surveyor report oil chamber and few other parts like front bumper and other small items of said car was replaced and on 16.09.2010 said car was handed over to the complainant, as per respondent no.2 and surveyor of respondent no.4 at that time it was ok in all respect but till date neither respondent no.4 nor aurthorized workshop of respondent no.3 i.e respondent no.1 and 2 has disclosed to the complainant regarding the nature of defects and instructions given, even on persistent requests of the complainant such respondents has not given copy of survey report to him.
13. It is stated that said car was repaired at the workshop of the respondent no.2 at Wazirpur, Delhi vide its Job Card No. JC-10018517,  at that time the mileage meter reading of said car was 19,965 Kms. Needless to mention that the complainant has carried said car to the workshop of respondent no.2 by Tow Chain.
14. It is stated that on 15.09.2010, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,386.00 from his own pocket out of assessed cost of the said repairs/replacements of parts of said car, copy of receipt dated 15.09.2010 evidencing receipt of Rs.3,386.00 by the respondent no.2 from the complainant is annexed hereto and marked as annexure E to this complaint.
15. It is stated that when said car was toed to respondent no.2, it was not in starting condition as the oil was dripping down from chamber then surveyor of respondent no.4 has not given instruction for checking engine as a whole, so if said car was ok in all respect then why and how the turbo has been damaged, thus respondent no.2 based on the survey report of surveyor of respondent no.4 has just done the formality of changing oil and replacement of chamber which subsequently resulted turbo damage and engine loss.
16. It is stated that respondent no.2 assured the complainant that said car is properly examined accurately repaired and is also tested by there Engineer and after repair such car was declared fault free, in a good, perfect and working condition. Complainant has no options except to believe the word of the respondent no.2 that the said car was diligently accurately, satisfactorily and properly repaired and it would not develop any further defect for which it was repaired and it would run smoothly because its workshop is having latest facilities and is an Authorized Workshop of the respondent no.3.
17. It is stated that respondent no.2 has assessed cost of the said repairs/replacements of parts of said car at Rs.9,081.00, rest amount of assessed cost of the said repairs/replacements of parts was paid to the respondent no.2 by insurer i.e the respondent no.4, copy of repair of said car is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F to this complaint.
18. It is stated that on or about 13.10.2010 after repair of said car by the respondent no.2, the complainant by self driving proceeded to Haldwani, Distt. Nainital, Uttrakhand from Delhi but while returning from Haldwani to Delhi on 15.10.2010 on the way on the National Highway near the city of Moradabd, U.P, when mileage meter reading of said car was 22259 Kms. the exhaust (Silencer) of car started omitting white smoke and pick up of car decreased. Somehow complainant took the vehicle to M/s Akansha Motors authorized workshop of respondent no.3 at Moradabad for checking the problem, when it was noticed that the turbo of engine is damaged and oil is going from the oil seal to exhaust pipe and giving white smoke. As M/s Akansha Motors were not having Turbo in there stock they blocked the oil leakage and temporally rectified the vehicle so that it can move. It is further stated that the performance of the said car was not up to mark and was much below to average, which was later on assessed by M/s Akansha Motors as well as be respondent no.1, same was due to defective repair and gross negligence/carelessness on the part of respondent no.2 by which performance and the life of engine has also considerably shorten as there was a poor pick up and abnormal noise in the engine of said which was creating vibrating and jamming of accelerator same was due to damage of engine because of defective repair and deficient service by the respondent no.2.
19. It is stated that from aforesaid it is clear that since repair of said car by respondent  no.2 on 12.09.2010, till oil leakage from the chamber of the said car and emission of excessive smoke from the cylinder of said car at Moradabad on 15.10.2010, the said car has covered mileage of only 2294 Km (mileage meter reading of 22259 Kms-mileage meter reading of 19965 Km).
20. It is stated that on 16.10.2010, after reaching Delhi, said car was taken to respondent no.1, as the said car was purchased from it and it was also told by M/s Akansha Motors that turbo comes under warranty clause, as said car neither covered mileage of 40000 kms and has nor completed 2 years as such same shall be replaced by respondent no.1. After inspection of said car and history Mr. Amit, the Maruti Engineer taking care of respondent no.1 pointed out  that it is the fault of respondent no.2 who has not correctly diagnosed the problem when said car was repaired by it, respondent no.2 have not checked the engine properly and at time it could have been a very small damage. On consulting Mr. Vikas, Service Engineer of respondent no.2, he has stated that respondent no.2 have rectified only those defects for which authorized surveyor of respondent no4 has instructed it as per the details given by the respondent consequential effect of repair by respondent no.2, which has damaged the engine of said car, copy of preliminary check up report of said car dated 16.10.2010 of the respondent no.1 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G to this complaint.
21. It is stated that on 16.10.2010 for further course of action, respondent no.1 has contacted respondent no.2 to know the case history of repair done by it on 16.09.2010 and based on the verbal information from the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 has started examination of turbo and engine and ultimately turbo of said car was replaced on 31^st October, 2010, at cost paid by the complainant by is own pocket. Thereafter, the respondent  no.1 has mechanically checked the engine performance level and has informed the complainant that engine is not giving 100 % compression and it is damaged,.
22. It is stated that before 31^st october, 2010, respondent no.1 has forwarded case of replacement of turbo for approval of warranty to the respondent no.3 who has denied the same on 23.12.2010 with remark that “warranty denied due to vehicle underbody hit as previous history attended at Rana Motors Ring Road on 12.09.2010 at 19965 km, engine need overhaul as per engine compression, cyl-1-14.5 kg/cm, cyl-2-13.05, cyl3-13.0, cyl4-13.5 kg/cm”, as such the job card which was manually opened on 16.10.10 was closed on 23.12.2010, the respondent no.1 has raised a bill for cost of turbo and other  items amounting to Rs.22,073.00 which was paid by the complainant on 23.12.2010.
23. It is stated that respondent no.1 has mechanically checked the engine performance level and has informed the complainant that engine is not giving 100%  compression and it is damaged, on 23-12-2010 the respondent no.1 has opened new job card for fitting of engine and same was closed on 31.12.2010, the respondent no.1 has raised a bill for fitting of engine amounting to Rs.7,623.00, which was paid by the complainant on 31-12-2010, when delivery of said car was taken by the complainant. Thus complainant was forced to pay Bills for Rs.29,696.00 (Rs.22,073.00+Rs.7,623.00) to the respondent no.1, despite the fact the said car is under warranty of respondent no.3 and fully insured by respondent no.4.
24. It is stated that after the said car carried to the workshop of respondent no.1, and was given to the  respondent no.1, where it was checked and inspected by the Automobile Engineers of the said workshop through advanced Apparatus/Electronic Devices and after inspection respondent no.1 has orally exposed to the complainant that damage of the turbo and oil leakage in the cylinder of the said car was a consequential damage due to defective repair and gross negligence/carelessness on the part of respondent no.2, as respondent no.2 has failed to diagnose genuine nature of problem, had respondent no.2 would have carefully examined genuine nature of problem and inspected minutely and by using advanced Apparatus/Electronic Devices and repaired engine properly and accurately then further damage to the engine could have been avoided.
25. It is stated that damage to the engine of said car was due to gross negligence/carelessness and casual repairing on the part of respondent no.2, as respondent no.2 has failed to diagnose genuine nature of problem through advanced Apparatus/Electronic Devices, if the respondent no.2 would have diligently identify the problem and repair said car for that problem on 12.09.2010, then said car would have not breakdown subsequently on 15-10-2010, as such same is deficiency on the part of the respondent no.2. Similarly damage to the engine of said car is also attributable to the respondent no.4, as due to gross negligence/carelessness on the part  of surveyor of respondent no.4, the surveyor of respondent no.4 has not carried out proper survey of said car and has failed to diagnose real nature of defect and has not recommended for repair of said car at the authorized workshop of the Respondent no.3 as such same is deficiency on the part of respondent no.4.
26. It is stated that respondent no.2 is denying repair and replacement of said car on the plea that damage to turbo is not consequential damage as after repair of said car by respondent no.2 when the complainant has taken delivery of said car then complainant was fully satisfied with its repairing also that damage to turbo is not consequential damage as same is not resulted from breakdown of the engine and such breakdown of the engine was not resulted due to faulty repair of said car by respondent no.2.
27. It is stated that the respondent no.1 is denying to replace turbo of said car under the warranty on the plea that damage to turbo is a consequential damage and same is resulted from breakdown of the engine and such breakdown of the engine was resulted due to faulty repair of said car by respondent no.2, as such same is not covered under warranty. Respondent no.3 has also not approved replacement of turbo. However in normal case replacement of turbo is covered under the warranty clauses, as turbo is part of engine.
28. It is stated that respondent no.4 is denying claim of claimant on  the plea that damage to turbo is not consequential damage as after repairing of said car by respondent no.2 when the complainant has taken delivery of said car then complainant was fully satisfied with its repairing and respondent no.4 has already settled claim of repair dated 12-09-2010 of said car with respondent no.2 also that damage to turbo is not consequential damage as same is not resulted from breakdown of the engine and such breakdown of the engine was not resulted due to faulty repair of said car by respondent no.2. It is further stated that the respondent no.4 is shifting its liability on respondent no.2 for claim prepared and repair work done as well as by saying that the damage to turbo and engine is consequential and as per insurance policy the claims arising from consequential damage are not covered under insurance. Needless to mention that if claim of the complainant is not covered within the claim for the consequential damage, then too it is covered under insurance as fresh claim.
29. It is  stated that in spite of fact that the said car is within warranty periods of 24 months of respondent no.3 and is fully insured for all accidental claims by respondent no.4 but each of the respondents are denying claim of complainant by shifting their burden to each others and are not repairing/replacing parts of said either under warranty or under Insurance policy.
30. It is stated that the respondent no.1 detained said car at its workshop for repair etc. for 77 days i.e from 16-10-2010 to 31-12-2010 but it has neither repair/replaced the turbo of said car free of cost nor released said car without recovering charges for checking up from the complainant, though the car is within warranty period as it has neither covered 40,000 kms. nor 24 months has been expired from the date of delivery of said car, in such case defective part of the engine either would have been repaired or have been replaced by a new one by authorized workshop of the respondent no.3 without charging any money for the said replacement or repair, as in terms of warranty policy, it is obligatory on the respondent no.3 that if any defects is found in said car within the terms, Maruti Suzuki’s only obligation is to repair or replace at is sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts of labour.
31. It is stated that since 16.10.2010 to 31.12.2010, when said car was detained for repair/replacement of parts with the workshop of respondent no.1 till date the complainant is running from pillar to post for rectifying the defects of said car and is roaming around to the offices/workshop of the respondents no.2 & 4 but complainant is not getting any response from such respondents.
32. It is stated that since 01.01.2011 to 07.02.2011 after taking back said defective car from respondent no.1, due to paucity of funds the complainant could not repair said car and kept said defective car at his address, however he was in continuous contact of respondents no.2 & 4 in anticipation that after realizing its responsibility said respondents would call complainant to made defects good of the said car but respondents no.2 & 4 has not paid any heeds to the problems of the complainant.
33. It is stated that on 08.02.2011, after arranging funds ultimately said car is given for repair to the workshop of the respondent no.1 for changing of half assembly engine, when respondent no.1 has changed half assembly of the engine and has charged a sum of Rs.76,960.00 as a cost of changing/repairing of half assembly of the engine thereafter on 15.02.2011 it has delivered said car to the complainant, which is another blow to the complainant, despite the fact that as per the terms of insurance policy, the said car could have repaired cashless appropriately, accurately and satisfactorily by the respondent no.2 on the instructions of respondent no.4 without charging any repairing charges from the complainant, copy of bill cum receipt dated 15-02-2011 evidencing payment of Rs.76,960.00 by the claimant to respondent no.1 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-H to this complaint.
34. It is stated that due to the breakdown of engine of the said car the complainant is deprived of benefit of said car and for his conveyance purposes, the complainant is completely depending on hired taxis, as the complainant is not having any other alternative mode for his conveyance except said car, in absence thereof the complainant is forced to hire taxi for his conveyance from his residence to his place of business i.e. Samaypur Badli also for his routine business meetings at different places and in and around the markets and for that from 16-10-2010 till 15-02-2011 (123 days), complainant has incurred an daily average hire charges of Rs.1200.00 for taxi (hire charges for approximately 12 hours daily), till date of filing of this complaint i.e 15.02.2011, the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.1,47,600.00 (Rupees One Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) towards conveyance charges till his car is repaired.
35. It is stated that the complainant is M.B.A and is running a industry, due to deficiency in service of respondents he is suffering professional loss, as his valuable business time is wasted in roaming around the offices and business premises of the respondents for redressal of his grievances and in pursuing their officers and management that was totally due to the carelessness, negligence and non performance of the duties by the respondents, in the process the complainant has already suffered huge business loss but he is claiming same to the tune of approximately Rs.50,000.00.
36. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondents no.2 & 4, the complainant is compelled to file this litigation which is costing Rs.22,000.00 in form of litigation expanses including lawyer’s fee, thus complainant has caused a loss of Rs.22,000.00 in this account.
37. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondents no.2 & 4 the complainant was forced to pay an amount of Rs.29,696.00 for check up/replacement charges of turbo of said car to respondent no.1 form his own pocket, despite the fact that nothing was payable from the pocket of the complainant as the said car is covered under warranty as well as his fully insured by respondent no.4 which is a loss to the complainant.
38. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondent no.2 the complainant was forced pay an amount of Rs.3,386.00 from his own pocket respondents no.2, despite the fact that nothing was payable from the pocket of the complainant as the said car is covered  under warranty and is fully insured by respondent no.4 which is a loss to the complainant.
39. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondents no.2 & 4 the complainant is suffering from physical, mental agony and mental harassment, as such the complainant may by compensated by the respondents no.2 & 4 to the tune of Rs.50,000.00 for his monetary loss, physical, mental agony and mental harassment.
40. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondents no.2 & 4 the complainant is forced to pay to the respondents no.1 and amount of Rs.76,960.00 for repairing charges for changing of half assembly engine, from his own pocket, despite the fact that nothing was payable from the pocket of the complainant as said car is fully insured by respondent no.4 which is a loss to the complainant.
41. It is stated that complaint is entitled to interest @ 18% on above losses from the date of cause of action which is arisen from the deficient services of the respondents no.2 & 4.
42. It is stated that in spite of the fact that said car is under warrantee of respondent no.3 till 14-07-2011 and is fully insured by respondent no.4 for a period from 20.7.2010 to 19.07.2011 but even then for repairing defects of the said car the complainant is paying huge money from his own pocket and has already incurred a loss which is more than actual cost of new car.
43. It is stated that since 22-12-2010, the complainant is exchanging its correspondences with respondent no.4 for redressal of his grievances but respondent no.4 is denying its liability and shifting its burden to others, copies of the emails dated 22-12-2010 & 06-01-2011 written by complainant to respondent no.4 are annexed herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure-I colly to this complaint.
44. It is stated that copies of reply emails dated 23-12-2010, 28-12-2010,06-01-2011 & 12-01-2011 of respondent no.4 to the complainant are annexed herewith and are collectively marked as Annexure-J colly to this complaint.
45. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondent no.2 in repairing of said car and similarly due to deficiency in service of the respondents no.4 in not instructing the respondent no.2 by proper examination of said for the real defect requires to be repair, life of the engine of the car has lessen due to the defective repair and negligence of respondent no.2, hence now it is the only way out is that engine of car be replaced with a new engine by the respondents no.2 and 4.
46. It is stated  that due to deficiency in service of respondents no.2 & 4 the complaint is deprive of the use of said car and said unrepaired and unusable car is parked at the address of the complainant residence though same is purchased by him for his use and occupation by taking bank loan on interest.
47. It  is stated that due to the breakdown of engine of the said car, the complainant has suffer irreparable loss of money as well as physical and mental hardship as the engine of the said car was seized in the mid of journey during the trip from Haldwani to delhi on the highway, near the city of Moradabad, the complainant also suffered monetary loss due to the disorder of his business because of the non-availability of said car for travelling from his residence to place of business and vice-versa also meetings with his customers and clients.
48. It is stated that due to deficiency in service of respondent no.1 and 3 in selling the car having sub standard and defective engine, the engine of said car is being forced to overhaul only at the mileage of 22,000 kms, whereas normal overhauling of engine is necessitated after mileage of 1,25,000 kms.
49. It is stated that due to deficiency in service and negligence of respondent no.2 and 4 in repairing of said car, the engine of said car is breakdown and requiring overhaul only at the mileage of 22,000 km as well as within 14 months of its purchase. It is obligatory on the part of respondent no.2 that if said car is breakdown due to its negligence and deficiency in service then it should have rectify defects of said car by repairing or replacing its defective parts at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. It is also obligatory on the respondent no.4 that if said car meets any accident then as an insurer it should repair/replace parts of said car and should also make good consequential damages arising out of the accidental repair. Since repairing of said car is not curing its defects and it has shorten life of the engine, as such it is mandatory on the parts of respondent no.2 & 4 that they forthwith replace the said car or its engine with  new engine, as due to same recurring losses are being sustained by the complainant.
50. It is stated that Turbo comes under warranty, which was opinion of M/s Akansha Motors, who is one of the authorized workshop/dealer of respondent no.3 at Moradabad but at Delhi when  the respondent no.1 has forwarded claim for approval of replacement of Turbo of complainant to the respondent no.3 then it is has denied warranty by asserting that said car is under body hit and the damage to said car is consequential effect to repair by respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 is putting everything on the survey report of respondent no.4 and is shifting its all responsibility on the respondent no.4.
51. It is stated that the respondent no.2 is guilty for the deficiency of service as he did not repair the car properly as well as charging of repairing/material charges despite car is covered under Insurance Policy of respondent no.4 and keeping the complainant in dark by giving false assurance that the said car is repaired perfectly and accurately.
52. It is stated that the respondent no.4 is guilty for the deficiency of service, as despite cashless insurance of said car for all losses and accidents it is not instructing respondent no.2 for cashless repairing/replacement of spare parts of said car.
53. It is stated that, even assuming but not admitting that damage to the turbo and engine of said car is not occurred due to faulty repair of said car by respondent no.2 or such damage is not a consequential outcome of repair of said car by respondent no.2 then too as cashless insurer of said car it is mandatory upon respondent no.4 to reimburse cost of repair,  compensation and labour etc of said car as complainant has not repaired such car from any unauthorized dealer of respondent no.3 (manufacturer of car). The respondent no.4 has forgotten the fact that the said car is fully insured by it for a period from 20.7.2010 to 19.07.2011 under insurance policy no.311200014860300000 in the name of complainant.
54. It is stated that even damage to the turbo and engine of said car is occurred due to faulty repair or such damage was a consequential outcome of repair of said car by respondent no.2, who is also authorized dealer of respondent no.3 (manufacturer of car), then too it was mandatory upon respondent no.3 to settle matter of repairs directly inter se with its authorized dealers without forcing to the complainant to spend enormous money from his own pocket for repairing of defects of said car interalia for the reasons that said car was under warranty.
55. It is stated that the complainant is impleading respondents no.1 & 3 as performa respondents and no relief is being claim against such respondents on the assumptions that denial of approval for replacement of turbo of said car under warranty by respondent no.3 is correct one, however if this Learned Consumer Forum comes to the conclusion that being seller & manufacturer of car said car is covered under warranty and the respondents no.1 & 3 are also guilty for the deficiency in service for not replacing turbo etc and engine assembly of said car under terms of warranty, then this learned Consumer Forum is requested to issue appropriate and suitable directions against such respondents no.1 & 3, reasons for such assertions by complainant is that M/s Akansha Motors, who is one of the authorized workshop/dealer of respondent no.3 under Moradabad after checking of said car was of the view that Turbo was to be replace under warranty but M/s Akansha Motors was unable to replace turbo as they were not having it in their stocks. Even otherwise also the respondents no.3, who is the manufacturer of the said car and the respondent no.1, who is the dealer of respondent no.3 for the sale and repair of the said car are guilty of deficiency of service inter alia for selling defective car to the complainant having a defective engine as well as for charging inspection, repairing/replacement of spare parts charges.
56. The complainant is seeking direction against respondent no.2 and 4 to pay an amount of Rs.29,696.00 towards the loss incurred to complainant in paying for checkup/repairing charges of car to respondent no.1 from his own pocket which is fully recovered by respondent no.4, to pay Rs.76,960.00 towards the loss incurred to complainant in paying for repairing charges of changing of half assembly engine which is fully covered by insurance policy of respondent no.4, an amount of Rs.3,386.00 towards the loss incurred by complainant in paying for repairing charges of car from own pocket which is covered by insurance company respondent no.4, to pay an amount of Rs.1,47,600.00 towards the loss incurred to complainant in paying for conveyance charges from 16.10.2010 till 15.02.2011 (123 days) @ Rs.1200.00 per day when the car could not ply due to repair, to pay amount of Rs.50,000.00 towards the loss incurred to complainant for his professional loss due to wastage of valuable business hours, to pay amount of Rs.50,000.00 towards compensation to complainant for his suffering from physical, mental agony and mental harassment, to pay amount of Rs.22,000.00 towards the cost of litigation and interest @18% from the date of cause of action till the payment.
57. Complainant alternatively seeking that car no.DL-8C-NB-6594 is covered under terms of warranty then direction by issued to respondent 1 and 3 to pay to complainant all the cost of repair and replacement together with compensation and damages etc. as sought from respondent no.2 and 4 and to replace the present defective engine of the car by a new perfect and accurate engine at their own cost and responsibility and cost of the complaint also be awarded to complainant.
58. OP1 filed written statement and taken preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material on record against the answering respondent. The present complaint is also not maintainable in its present form and before this Hon’ble Forum, the complaint is, therefore liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
59. It is stated that the complainant himself has mentioned in his complaint in para No.59 that he had impleaded the respondent no.1 and 3 as performa party and he has no grievances against the respondent, hence the name of the present respondent should be deleted from the array of parties. Even and otherwise there is no deficiency in services were mentioned in complete complaint against the answering respondent, hence the complainant of the complainant should be dismissed specifically against the answering respondent.
60. It is stated that answering respondent is filing the vehicle history along with the written statement which proves that the relation of complainant and answering respondent were very cordial and consumer friendly, because the complainant has never made the allegations against the work done by the answering respondent. And each and every visit, he was treated as a preferential customer, hence the complainant of the complainant should be dismissed specifically against the answering respondent.
61. It is stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action against the answering respondent. The complainant has no case of deficiency in services against the answering respondent, hence the complainant of the complainant should be dismissed specifically against the answering respondent.
62. It is stated that the compensation u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act can be awarded to the complainant for any loss or injury suffered by the complainant due the negligence by the respondent(s), the complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the answering respondent. The relief, thus, asked for by the complainant fall outside the ambit of clause (a) to (i) in section 14(1) of the said Act, hence the complainant of the complainant should be dismissed specifically against the answering respondent.
63. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and reiterated the contents of the preliminary objections. It is stated that customer was advised due services, but he refused as he was not having original RC on 09.09.2010 at 15:33 p.m and mileage of car was shown as 19963 Km. It is further stated that on 16.10.2010 complainant was in Moradabad, U.P and he was advised by M/s Akansha motors regarding Turbo change, Turbo charger found broken but the same was not available in store. It is stated that complainant has never approached on the said date as per the history attached and filed on record. There was no faulty repair by respondent no.2. It is stated that complainant approached the answering respondent on 25.11.2010 about some disfunctions and same were rectified as per demand and the complainant was advised to engine overhaul.
64. It is stated that as and when the complainant approached the answering respondent he was treated in respectful manner and no comments were passed regarding any other person/firm/respondent etc. It is further stated that replacement of turbo depends upon the warranty clause provided in service booklet by respondent no.3 if he deems fit. It is further stated that the vehicle history itself proves that the car in question approached to answering respondent on 23.12.2010 and it was delivered to complainant on 31.12.2010 and advised to overhaul the engine but he refused. It is stated that complainant was having the knowledge that answering respondent is not having the cashless facility with the respondent no.4, therefore, answering respondent has received the bill amount only from the complainant which is not an offence or deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. It is stated that no documents on record to prove the version of complainant regarding paying the amount to private operators regarding conveyance charges. No document on record to prove the version of complainant regarding his MBA and professional charges. It is stated that answering respondent is being made  performa party and no relief sought by complainant therefore, may be deleted from array of parties. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed against answering respondent.
65. OP2 filed written statement and taken preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall within the definition of complainant as defined in Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint merits dismissal with exemplary costs. It is stated that the complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has placed wrong facts as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
66. It is stated that the present complaint is without any cause of action qua the answering respondent. Hence merits dismissal with costs. It is stated that the present complaint is filed with sole malafied intentions to drag the answering respondent and harass the answering respondent by frivolous litigation, the complaint merits dismissal with costs.
67. It is stated that the complainant has not supplied the copies of annexures annexed with the complaint and has mentioned to the same in the complaint. The answering respondent reserves his rights to amend the written statement after receiving the copies of the annexures. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present. It is stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as such complaint merits dismissal with costs.
68. On merits all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and reiterated the contents of the preliminary objections. It is stated that insurance is totally depends upon the insurance company with whom they have certain policy or not. Providing of cashless scheme any of the dealer is the prerogative of the insurance company and the complainant cannot raise question of difference between one dealer and other dealer of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. neither respondent no.3 as any role to play.
69. It is stated that complainant brought the car on crane for accidental repairs and the surveyor of the insurance company had inspected the car and recommended for the chamber hit problem. The respondent no.2 had changed grill, bumper, strainer assembly, oil pan, oil under the accident claim. It is further stated that complainant himself has admitted that the vehicle is ok in all respect after the repair by the answering respondent. The copy of job card and bill filed on record. The survey report remains with the surveyor or insurance company. It is stated that the vehicle was hit and chamber of vehicle was damaged when the vehicle had run 19015 Km and complainant had driven the vehicle in damaged condition for 50 Kms when reached at the workshop of the answering respondent at 19965 Kms. It is stated that complainant had to pay the depreciation charges apart to the amount paid by the insurance company. The complainant is liable to pay depreciation and 50% cost of bumpers and other electrical items.
70. It is stated that turbo section of the car is far away from the chamber of the car and at the time when the complainant had brought the car at the workshop of the answering respondent the turbo was not damaged. The answering respondent repaired the car as per instructions of the surveyor. It is stated that the vehicle was repaired and was in perfect fault free condition after repairs and was handed over to complainant to his satisfaction. The car of the complainant is not damaged any further due to repair by the answering respondent. The turbo of the car had nothing to do with chamber and answering respondent had to repair the chamber and other parts of the car and turbo was in fine condition. It is further stated that a bill of Rs.9081.00 was raised on the insurance company and the same was paid to the answering respondent.
71. It is stated that on 15.10.2010 the vehicle was at 22259 Kms when got damaged  and in one month run about 2294 Kms. It is further stated that in case the turbo of the engine was damaged when the vehicle was handed over to complainant, the vehicle could not have run for 2294 Kms and why complainant did not brought the vehicle at the workshop of answering respondent. It is further stated that complainant has neither filed any record purportedly have been issued by M/s Akansha motors nor has made as party to the complainant. The car was  in perfect condition and there was no defect in the car in case the turbo was damaged the car should  not have been driven to such a long distance. It is stated that there is no defective repair and deficient services on the part of answering respondent.
72. It is stated that complainant might have paid for the turbo as the same must have been damaged due to negligence of the complainant and as such the same might have not been changed under warranty. It is further stated that respondent no.3 might have given full report which has neither been filed nor supplied by the complainant and many parts related to the turbo might have been changed at the cost of complainant. It is further stated that the complainant got the vehicle at the workshop of answering respondent and the surveyor or respondent no.4 had specifically instructed the service engineers of the answering respondent to repair the chamber hit problem, the same was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant. The turbo was not at all damaged at movement as the same is quite far off the chamber of the car. In case of the turbo damage the answering respondent cannot be held responsible and there is no deficiency on the part of answering respondent. It is further stated that the turbo of the car was damaged due to negligent and careless driving of the complainant and now pass on his negligence and carelessness on the answering respondent and respondent no.4. The complainant has not placed on record any document showing the damage to the turbo is the consequential damage of the repairs done by the answering respondent. It is stated that the portion wherein the complainant alleged that replacement of the turbo is other wise covered under the insurance policy is concerned with the insurance company.
73. It is stated that the insurance company pays only 50% on the plastic parts and electrical fittings and rest of the 50% is alongwith depreciation value is to be paid by customer. It is further stated that answering respondent had repaired the car as per instructions of the insurance company and to the total satisfaction of the complainant. It is further stated that at the mid-way to Moradabad the engine of the vehicle seized due to lack of mobile oil and not due to repairs of the answering respondent. Had it been due to alleged defective repairs, the car would not have run 1155Kms for about a month. The turbo of the car might have damaged due to negligence of the complainant not due to alleged repairs by the answering respondent. It is stated that there is no basis of paying of taxi charges to the tune of Rs.1,47,600.00 by the complainant as no documents filed. It is stated that respondent no.2 not at all liable to pay any amount to complainant as there is no deficiency of service on the part of answering respondent. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
74. OP3 filed written statement and taken preliminary objections that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer” of the answering opposite party as defined U/s 2 (1)(d)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after called “The Act” for the sake of brevity). The complainant cannot be allowed to raise any claim against the answering OP which is not covered under ambit of warranty. The vehicle in question met with an accident (underbody hit/damage) and due to external hit on oil pan/sump & oil strainer, the oil couldn’t reach the engine and due to oil starvation engine got seized. The complainant even neglected the warning malfunction indicator light glowing in the cluster instrumental panel and continued to drive the vehicle resulting in engine seizure. The act of the complainant substantiates negligent and careless driving habits in violation of the terms & conditions of warranty as per clause 4(e). The warranty obligations of this OP to the vehicle in question stand forfeited on 12.09.2010 due to gross violation of warranty. It is stated that the complainant has suffered due his own negligent and careless acts for which this OP is not responsible. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods (car)/accidental repairs nor hired any service for consideration  with the answering OP. Even otherwise the accidental repairs aren’t covered under Clause 4 (d) ambit of warranty of this OP. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands & suppressed several relevant facts from this Hon’ble Forum. Hence, the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed in-limne on this ground alone.
75. It is stated that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ of the answering respondent as defined U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after called “The Act” for the sake of brevity. The complainant bought the vehicle in question for “business/commercial purposes” and has no right to raise any claim against the answering respondent. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Laxmi Engineering works Vs. P.S.G Industrial Institute 1995 SC has rightly viewed the ambit of commercial use of vehicle. The complainant cannot be allowed to raise any claim against the answering OP which is not covered under ambit of warranty and the instant case falls under the category of commercial use. The complainant has plied the vehicle very extensively for commercial/ business purposes for more than 31,097 Kms within 26 months (as on 30.09.2011) of purchase, which itself refutes all the allegations of complainant and raises serious doubts over his bonafides. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands & suppressed several relevant facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On this ground alone the complaint deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs, averted.
76. It is stated that complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint on false allegations without any material on records. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs under Section 26 of the Act. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against answering opposite party (OP). The complainant has got the vehicle repaired on paid basis on 12.09.2010 and after repairs took the delivery to his entire satisfaction. The complainant has concealed this relevant fact from this Hon’ble Forum and with an afterthought to make good to the loss suffered by him on account of negligence & careless has approached this Hon’ble Forum to make unjustified gains. The complainant with ulterior motive had been making demands which are beyond the scope of warranty and taking the shelter of this Hon’ble Forum and trying to put undue pressure on this OP. Hence, the instant complaint be dismissed in limine.
77. It is stated that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. This answering OP is neither necessary nor performa party to the complaint. The complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action in the present complaint against this OP. The complainant has suppressed several relevant facts from this Hon’ble Forum and has impleaded this OP with an ulterior motive to cause wrongful loss and to obtain undue gains.
78. It is stated that the allegations made in the purported complaint are outside the scope and ambit of the allegations, as required by section 2 (i)(c) of the Act to constitute a valid complaint. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any consumer dispute between the complainant and answering OP and thus the same does not give jurisdiction to this Hon’ble Forum to entertain the present complaint against the answering OP. The Hon’ble Forum may accordingly direct the complainant to approach appropriate Forum.
79. It is stated that the compensation u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act can be awarded to the complainant for any loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the answering OP. The complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the answering OP. The instant complaint fall outside the ambit of clauses (a) to (i) in Section 14(1) of the Act.
80. It is stated that the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the answering OP. It is stated that this case is a rare example of false, frivolous litigation and has been filed to make profit out of it. Lastly, the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts, conduct & acquiescence. The complainant has not locus standi to initiate the present proceedings and liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Act. It is pertinent to understand that before any vehicle is launched in the market, it has to undergo several processes of statutory (government) approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development. All the vehicles so manufactured by answering OP are duly approved by appropriate authority of Government of India (i.e. ARAI) after homologation test, considering all aspects of quality, safety & emission norms. Further the answering OP is an ISO certified company and is worl renowned for stringent quality checks at every level of production of vehicles. Sophisticated technology is used in the manufacturing process of production of vehicles which are 100% defect free. It is pertinent to  note that the vehicles manufactured by this OP undergo stringent quality checks at all levels of production and this OP has ISO/TS16949 certification for maintaining international manufacturing standards. The vehicle in question has also undergone all the checks and only then FCOK (Final Check OK) was given by answering OP before dispatching it to OP no.1. It is further pertinent to submit here that OP no.1 carry out Pre-Delivery inspection (PDI) including road test, ensuring perfect OK roadworthy condition of vehicle in question at the time of sale leaving no place for defects in vehicle. The customers at the time of sale acknowledge the same by signing the PDI/warranty Registration card at the time of purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle in question has undergone all the above process and was in perfect OK condition at the time of sale. It is further pertinent to submit that this OP gives primary warranty to all its new vehicles and the said warranty is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms from the date of purchase. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms & conditions & limitations as enumerated in owner’s manual & service booklet. The complainant is bound to strictly adhere to said guidelines and conditions for proper upkeep and maintenance of vehicle. The complainant’s entitlement of such warranty benefits strictly depends upon, thorough compliance of said terms and conditions. Here it is pertinent to submit that upon grave warranty violations the warranty obligations of this OP to the vehicle in question concluded on 12.09.2010. Hence, the instant complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
81. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and reiterated the contents of preliminary objections. It is stated that the relationship between answering OP and the dealer is that of Principal-Principal basis and governed by dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties. The alleged sale transaction of vehicle in question has taken place between the complainant and OP1 on the terms and conditions of sale settled between them and for which answering OP was not privy to alleged transaction. It is further stated that neither the complainant paid any consideration to answering OP nor answering OP rendered any services to complainant. It is further stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP. It is further stated that primary warranty to all new vehicles is for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as numerated in owners manual and service booklet supplied to complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle by OP1.
82. It is stated that the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions as numerated in owner’s manual and service  booklet and hence upon grave warranty violations the warranty obligations of answering OP to the vehicle in question concluded on 12.09.2010. It is further stated that the vehicle manufactured by answering OP after being certified FCOK (Final Check OK) was dispatched to dealer destination. The dealer at the time of sale to the customer carried out final PDI(Pre Delivery Inspection) ensuring the same a safe and imperfect OK road worthy condition leaving no place for defect in vehicle. It is stated that complainant has wrongly interpreted the warranty obligation and terms.
83. It is stated that as per clause 3 of warranty policy the answering OP “the obligation of the answering OP is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmenship at the time of manufacture. It is further stated that owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by this warranty.
84. It is stated that as per periodic maintenance schedule the customer has to compulsorily obtain first free inspection service at 1000 km or one month, second free inspection service at 5000 km or six months and third  inspection service at 10,000 kms or twelve months ( whichever comes first) from the date of purchase. Apart from three free services two paid services has to be obtained at 20,000 kms or 24 months and 30,000 kms or 36 months from the date of purchase of vehicle. It is further stated that as evident from  records the complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP1 for obtaining 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free inspection service on 07.08.2009 at 1066 Kms, on 01.10.2009 at 5083 Kms and on 30.01.2010 at 10,831 Kms respectively. The complainant at the time of obtaining set inspection services did not report or any abnormality observed by the expert service engineer of the workshop and minor adjustments needed during extensive use of vehicle was carried out alongwith repairs.
85. It is stated that normal services as per routine maintenance schedule were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and vehicle was road tested in the presence of complainant every time. It is further stated that answering OP fulfilled its obligations unequivocally as per the terms and conditions of warranty at all times whenever the vehicle was presented for obtaining service, therefore, there is no cause of action and complainant has approached with malafied intention to this Hon’ble Forum. It is stated that complainant informed the insurance company OP4 to get the repairs of vehicle carried under insurance claim because the vehicle met with an accident. The complainant towed the vehicle to the workshop of OP1 for obtaining body repairs on 12.09.2010 at 19965 Kms. The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineers of the workshop and observed leakage of engine oil from oil sump/pan due to major external hit on the oil sump and complainant was advised to get repairs on normal terms since the repairs are not covered under the terms of warranty. The repairs are engine oil pan need to changed due to damaged by outside impact, engine oil strainer assembly need to be changed due to the same damaged and new engine oil and filter required after replacement.
86. It is stated that the repairs were to be carried out on chargeable basis since not covered under the ambit of warranty as per clause 4 (d) and (e). It is further stated that the complainant informed the insurance company for survey of the vehicle since the cause of damage was attributed to negligence/accident of the vehicle. It is further stated that complainant entered an independent contract with the workshop for obtaining alleged repairs and paid the alleged consideration to OP2 and took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction and without any protest and demur. It is stated that the cause of alleged problem was purely due to negligent and careless driving habits of the complainant and not due to presence of any defect in the vehicle. It is stated that the complainant was quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of vehicle and more so the vehicle in question is having history of accidental repairs. It is further stated that the cause of alleged problem was attributed to complainant’s own negligence and not due to presence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Moreover, it is prerogative of the insurance company to pass claims as per their own rules and regulations subject to IRDA norms.
87. It is stated that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop and turbo charger was found damaged due to external impact which substantiate negligent and careless driving habits of the complainant. It is further stated that the compensation calculated by complainant is mere his exaggeration which proves ulterior motive and malafied intention. The complainant is not entitled to any relief qua compensation from answering OP. The complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle in question for his commercial/business purposes and has plied for more than 31097 kms as on 30.09.2011 which refutes the averments made by the complainant and raises serious doubts over his bonafidies. It is stated that complainant has failed to make any case of deficiency in service or negligent service against answering OP.
88. It is stated that complainant himself have assessed manufacturing defect in the vehicle for which the complainant is neither qualified nor have any expertise and failed to produce any material on record to prove presence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle before obtaining alleged repairs. It is stated that complainant is trying to misuse  the Hon’ble Forum for his personal case and filed false and frivolous complaint with malafied intention therefore liable to be dismissed.
89. OP4 filed written statement and taken preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is without cause is therefore, liable to be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs. It is stated that the complainant is trying to take advantage of his own laches and therefore, no relief can be granted to the complainant. The complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is stated that the answering Opposite Party had got the insured vehicle repaired to satisfaction of the complainant at workshop of Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant had admittedly taken delivery of the repaired vehicle after fully satisfying himself about the repairs on 16.09.2010.
90. On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied and reiterated the contents of the preliminary objections.
91. Complainant filed replication to the WS of OP1, 2 and 3. However, no replication filed on record to the WS of OP4. In the replication complainant denied all the preliminary submissions and all other allegations made by OP1, 2 and 3. The complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.
92. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit. The complainant reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on copy of driving licence Ex.CW1/1, copy of maintenance service record Ex.CW1/2, copy of RC Ex.CW1/3, copy of insurance policy Ex.CW1/4, copy of relevant terms of warranty policy Ex.CW1/5, copy of receipt dated 15.09.2010 Ex.CW1/6, copy of assessment bill dated 16.09.2010 Ex.CW1/7, copy of preliminary check up report dated 16.10.2010 Ex.CW1/8, copy of receipt dated 15.02.2011 of Rs.76,960 is Ex.CW1/9, copy of emails dated 22.12.2010 Ex.CW1/10, copy of email dated 06.01.2011 Ex.CW1/11, copy of replies dated 23.12.2010 Ex.CW1/12, dated 28.12.2010 Ex.CW1/13, dated 06.01.2011 Ex.CW1/14 and dated 12.01.2011 Ex.CW1/15.
93. OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.H.S Rekhi Director M/s Rana Motors Pvt. Ltd., in the affidavit contents of WS reiterated.
94. OP3 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Gurkirat Singh Qualified Engineer, in the affidavit contents of WS reiterated and relied on copy of relevant clauses of dealership agreement Annexure R-3/1, copy of warranty policy Annexure R-3/2, copy of job card dated 12.09.2010 and others Annexure R-1/3 (colly).
95. OP4 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Akshay Kshitij Bose Assistant Manager Legal, in the affidavit contents of WS reiterated and relied on policy terms and conditions of the insurance Ex.RW1/1.
96. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant, OP1, OP2 and OP4 as per record.
97. We have heard complainant in person, proxy counsel for Sh.R.K Rathee counsel for OP1, Raghav proxy for Sh. R.k Gupta counsel for OP4, despite several opportunities given counsel for OP2 and 3 failed to address oral arguments. We have gone through the record as well.
98. Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 15.07.2009 and got insured the same through OP-4 on 20.07.2010. It is the term of the warranty policy in respect to the vehicle in question that if said car develop any defect within 24 months or 40000/- kms (whichever occurred first from the date of delivery) then such defect shall be covered under warranty. On 11.09.2010 while the said car covered a mileage of 19915 kms it has come in contact of pit and the engine oil started leaking the complainant approached OP-1 and asked for the repair as the vehicle was under warranty but OP-1 refused and further informed the complainant that the present damages are accidental in nature hence, to approach to OP-4. The OP-4 partly accepted the claim and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 3,386/- from his own pocket against the deducted claim on account of plastic part, hence, in our view the OP-4 has discharged his liability against the accidental damage.
99. It is admitted by the complainant that on 13.10.2010 the vehicle in question run 22259 kms., when the car started omitting white smoke and pick of car decreased. The complainant approached M/S Akansha Motors  for verifying the problem and at this juncture it was noticed that turbo of engine is damaged and oil is going from the oil seal to exhaust pipe giving white smoke. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that M/S Akansha Motors while verifying the turbo informed him that the turbo of engine got damaged due to defective repairing on the part of OP-1, but the complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence e.g. the report of M/s M/S Akansha Motors to substantiate his contention that the turbo of the engine got damaged due to defective repairing by OP1. After necessary repairing work on 16.10.2010 the complainant approached OP-1, who forwarded the case of replacement of turbo to OP-3 but OP-3 denied the warranty as the vehicle in question is a case of  under body hit and as such the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 26, 696/- to OP-1. The complainant had prayed in his complaint that the amount of Rs. 26,696/- be paid by OP-4. The complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence which shows that he has lodged the claim of Rs. 26,696/- with OP-4 or even had given any intimation to OP-4 regarding the aforesaid repairing, the complainant has also failed to show that the aforesaid repairing is a result of consequential damages  of the accident,  hence, in our view  the OP-4 is not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 26,696/- to the complainant.
100. The complainant has prayed  at prayer-B of his complaint that OP-4 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 76,960/- to the complainant for repairing charges of  changing half assembly engine. The  complainant failed to place on record any documentary proof to substantiate that the turbo of the insured vehicle was damaged due to any accident moreover, complainant has not lodged any claim pertaining to the aforesaid repairing nor had intimated the OP-4 in respect of the same, hence, OP-4 is not liable to reimburse the aforesaid amount. In respect to prayer C we are of the considered view that the OP Ins. had deducted a sum of Rs 3,386/- against the necessary deductions as per policy terms and conditions as such the deduction is justified.
101. The complainant has prayed at para-D of his complaint that he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,47,600/- toward the loss incurred in paying the conveyance charge from 16.10.2010 till 15.02.2011 @ Rs.1200/- per day when his car was not plying on the road. The complainant failed to place on record any documentary proof of payment of Rs. 1200/- per day on account of conveyance charges the contention/prayer of the complainant is not acceptable and declined due to lack of documentary evidence.
102. The complainant has prayed in his complaint that the cost of the repairing and replacement be paid by 3. The OP-3 had taken the defense that its warranty obligation had concluded on 12.09.2010 upon grave violation of warranty terms. The expert service engineer who inspected the vehicle had found that turbo charger was damaged due to external impact which substantiate negligent and careless driving habit of the complainant, as such the vehicle is not covered under warranty and the complainant is liable to pay the repairing cost. The OP-3 averred in its written statement that the expert service engineer inspect the vehicle in question and found turbo charged damaged due to negligent and careless driving of complainant. The complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence to substantiate that the turbo got damaged due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
103. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant firstly filed the consumer complaint bearing no. 1490/2010 with this Commission and thereafter withdraw the same without assigning any cogent reason for withdrawal of the complaint that too when he had the grievance of decline of warranty against the repairing of the turbo engine and he had to pay the repairing expenses to the tune of Rs. 26,690/- from his own pocket.
104. After the withdrawal of the complaint on 17.01.2011 the complainant again approached OP-1 got the engine repaired on 08.02.2011 and thereafter immediately filed the present complaint on 01.03.2011 with the prayers mentioned in the complaint. The complainant neither has knocked the door of OP-3 for denial of the warranty nor had lodged any claim toward the repairing charges with OP-4 and immediately rush to this Commission in haphazard manner thereby requesting to ask OP-2 & 4 to pay the repairing expenses, conveyance charges and along with compensation and litigation cost and further put forth before this Commission the alternative prayer of directing OP-1 & 3 to pay the repairing cost along with compensation and litigation cost if this Commission comes to the conclusion that said Car No. DL-8C-NB-6594 is covered under terms of warranty. When the complainant himself is not sure and has not placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate that the vehicle in question is covered under the warranty, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service qua OP-1,2 & 3. Admittedly, the complainant had failed to lodge any claim pertaining to the two repairing bills with OP-4, we are of the considered view that no case of deficiency in service as alleged can be made out  qua OP-4.
105. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that due to lack of documentary evidence the complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP. We therefore find no merits in the present complaint, hence, dismissed.
106. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  20.12.2023.

Sanjay Kumar            Nipur Chandna                      Rajesh

               President                            Member                       Member