Delhi

East Delhi

CC/731/2012

CHAIN PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.R. SAWHNEY - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 731/12

 

Shri Chain Pal

276, Village Dera

Delhi                                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. M/s. T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Wazirabad Road, Meet Nagar

Shahdara, Delhi    

 

2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

Nelson Mandela Road

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70

 

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2^nd Floor, Jeewandeep Building

8, Parliament Street

New Delhi – 110 001                                                       …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.08.2012

Judgement Reserved on: 09.05.2018

Judgement Passed on: 17.05.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Chain Pal against M/s. T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), Maruti Suzuki India Limited (OP-2) and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant Chain Pal was the registered owner of Maruti Swift LDI-DL8CU 0276 car which was insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vide policy no. 00400583 dated 22.07.2011.  The said car met with an accident in August 2011 and was got repaired by M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1) vide job card no. JC11008526 on 20.08.2011.  It included the denting work also.  Some of the denting work was done and some was kept pending due to shortage of time under the notice of surveyor of New India Assurance Company (OP-3) with M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1). 

            At the time of delivery, the complainant was assured by M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1) to take the vehicle and after some days, they will get the pending work done without any charges.   The complainant contacted them many a times, but due to lack of time they did not complete the work. 

            The vehicle again met with an accident which was again got repaired on 28.02.2012 from M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1) without completion of the pending work.  The vehicle was delivered on 16.03.2012.  The complainant took the delivery with the remarks on instant feedback card “Receiving under protest as I am not satisfied”.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for completion of work by M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1), Maruti Suzuki India Limited (OP-2) and New India Assurance Company (OP-3) along with compensation of Rs. 98,500/-.

3.         In the written statement filed on behalf of M/s. T.R. Sawhney (OP-1), they have stated that the complainant used to create the pressure upon them for getting the discounts upon the depreciation amount of the total bill of repair.  They called the surveyor of the insurance company who passed a few works which was carried out by them.  The complainant wanted to get some more work which the insurance company declined to pass.  They have completed the work to the satisfaction of the complainant.  They have denied that claim for the job was settled with a pendency of job.  No task was kept pending.  They advised the complainant that they were ready to repaint the entire vehicle for which he or the insurance company to pay.  They have denied other facts also.

            In the written statement filed on behalf of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (OP-2), they have stated that complainant have failed to disclose any specific cause of action in his complaint against them.  Their relations with the dealers were of principal to principal basis.  They were the manufacturer and have nothing to do with the complaint.

            The New India Assurance Company (OP-3) did not appear or filed any reply.  Though, they have not been proceeded ex-parte during the course of proceedings, but the fact that they have not appeared, they stands proceeded ex-parte. 

4.         No rejoinder and evidence has been filed on behalf of complainant. 

            No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP-1.

            Maruti Suzuki India Limited (OP-2) filed their evidence by way of affidavit where they examined Shri Umar Faruk Basha, official of OP-2.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.   He has got exhibited documents such as copy of warranty policy (Annex.R-2/1) and copy of dealership agreement (Annex.R-2/2).  

5.         We have perused the material placed on record as none have appeared on behalf of the parties.  From the perusal, it is noticed that the complainant have not led any evidence in support of his complaint.  As the complainant have not led any evidence in support of his complaint, his complaint cannot be said to be proved.  Hence, the present complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member   

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President