Smt.Paramjit Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which she has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to release the vehicle as the vehicle was defective and to pay Rs.2,02,134/93 on account of sum assured and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to her, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she had purchased the car Renault Pulse from opposite party no.1 in June 2013 and got the insurance of the said vehicle from opposite party no.1 in the name of opposite party no.3 vide her Car bearing Registration No.PB-35-T-2550 vide Engine No.CC 18762 & Chasis No.D501313 vide Policy No.401000/31/13/610000010759 dated 19.6.2013 as such she is consumer of the opposite parties. She has further pleaded that on 04.05.2014, she with her son Mr.Ajay Pal Singh were travelling to Kanwan from Sarna and at near about 8 PM her said insured stopped itself on the way without giving any alarm by the electronic circuit which is displayed on the Speedometer of the car. She immediately informed to the opposite party no.1 from where she purchased the above mentioned Car, who is the authorized dealer of Renault and made the insurance of her vehicle. The customer care service Manager instructed her not to start the car and stop the car on the way, their team would come in the morning and check the cause and reason of the stopping of the car. Her vehicle did not show any warning signal of any defect in the engine. The fuel in the vehicle was full and speed of the vehicle was near about 35/40 Km/per hour. She did not understand about the sudden stop of car, again the Customer Care Manager told her that in the early morning they would send a crane vehicle for toeing of vehicle to the authorized service station/agency as mentioned by him as opposite party no.1 from where the said vehicle was purchased. The opposite party no.3 is the insurer of her car for the period from 19.06.2013 to 18.06.2014 and has full liability to pay the compensation amount of insurance to her, if the insurance amount is to be claimed whereas, Padam Car Pvt.Ltd. Jalandhar has made the insurance of her vehicle. She asked the opposite parties no.1 & 3 about the details of estimate dated 24.05.2014 vide detail No.ESAB 14000903 in which the amount of estimate was Rs.1,64,536.94/- and Rs.37,597.99/- respectively but they did not disclose about the cause of defect in the car. She again approached to the opposite party no.1, it clearly refused to handover the car to her and told her to pay the estimate bill and take away the car. She did not understand that why the amount is to be given to opposite party no.1 as the vehicle is insured and is within the warranty period as told by the opposite party no.1 at the time of purchase of the said car. Mr.Ajay Pal her son is a holder of valid driving license and the license is valid upto 11.08.2031. She has approached to the opposite party no.1 for release of vehicle which is laid down in the premises of opposite party no.1 and also approached to opposite party no.3 for the compensation amount of the insurance, but the opposite party no.1 have refused to handover the vehicle and opposite no.3 also refused to pay the compensation amount. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.
3. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies through their counsel separately. Opposite party no.1 by taking the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and conceals the material facts from the Ld.Forum. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.3 is the insurer of the car of the complainant for the period from 19.6.2013 to 18.6.2014 and has full liability to pay the compensation amount of insurance to her, if the insurance amount is to be claimed, whereas Padam Car Pvt.Ltd. Jalandhar has made the insurance of the vehicle of her. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with special costs.
4. Opposite party no.2 in its written statement taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble Forum, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage; there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It was stated that the subject vehicle was first reported at the workshop on 6.5.2014 for replacement of oil pan. However, when the oil pan was dismantled, it was found that the crankshaft had seized and stopped working. The complainant was immediately informed about the situation and was given an estimate of Rs.18,000/- for repair work to which the complainant gave his consent. Thereafter on further inspection of the subject vehicle it was found that there was major internal damage to the engine and various components of the same had to be replaced including piston set, piston rings, crank shaft and turbo charger. Since the components were damaged as a consequence to damaged oil sump, the same could not be considered under the purview of warranty therefore, again an estimate of Rs.1,64,000/- was given to the complainant and was asked to give his consent. The complainant was also informed that being consequential failure, the replacement of affected engine components was not approved by the insurance company as per insurance norms. The insurance company sent a letter dated 30.5.2014 to the complainant indicating the reasons for rejection. The said damage to the subject vehicle was caused due to the negligence of the complainant. The same has been affirmed in the inspection conducted by the insurance company as well. The complainant was informed about this fact by the insurance company in its letter dated 30.5.2014.On merit, the same contentions have been repeated and it has been further submitted that by the complainant’s own admission the vehicle was purchased in June 2013. The problem in the vehicle occurred in May 2014, almost one year after its purchase. It is also submitted that before May 2014 no problem was ever reported in the subject vehicle. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that there was any manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle. The damage to the vehicle was caused due to negligence of the complainant. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party no.3 in its reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence the same is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to disclose deficiency in the service; the complaint is without any cause of action, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is incorrect that on 4.5.2014, the complainant with her son Mr.Ajay Pal Singh were travelling to Kanwan from Sarna and at near about 9 P.M. the said insured vehicle of the complainant make Renault Pulse Class LMV car manufacturer Renault stopped itself on the way without giving any alarm by the electronic circuit which is displayed on the speedometer of the car. The complainant may be directed to give strict proof of it. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Smt.Paramjit Kaur complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
7. Sh.Jagdev Singh Body Shop Manager of Padam Car Pvt.Ltd. of the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP1/10 and closed the evidence.
8. Sh.Parveen Chadha, Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd. Of opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.
9. On 17.3.2014 the opposite party no.2 did not come present to tender the evidence and pay the cost of Rs.200/- which was imposed on 18.2.2015 for not producing the evidence, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
11. We find that the complainants’ prayed relief comprises of release of the Car in question by the OP1 workshop without charging any Repairs Bills and instead the OP3 insurers need to pay Rs.2,02,134.93p on account of the sum assured besides to pay Rs.100,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation etc whereas she (the complainant) has failed to prove on records the alleged ‘stop-function’ of the Car at its ‘own’ while being driven to ‘Kanwan’ on the evening of 04.05.2014. However, the evidence as available on records itself cogently establishes that the Vehicle’s Engine was forcibly made to ‘run/ function’ with the ‘engine-oil’ having drained out of the damaged ‘oil-sump’ and that caused its ‘seizure’ with further damage to other ‘engine-parts’ fall under the category of ‘consequential’ damage and outside the purview of the ‘insurance-claim’. The repairs-estimates Ex.C2 read out in the light of the Ex.C3 estimation details speak loud and clear of the consequential damage. But, somehow the complainant in her apparent effort to hush up the major consequential damage has not cared to explain as to how the ‘damage’ got incurred to the engine oil-sump and in the absence of the same even the ‘eligible’ claim under the Policy was not claimed.
12. In the light of all above, we find no merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 8,2015. Member.
*MK*
