Delhi

North East

CC/377/2015

Mukul Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Authorized Person Shiv Auto Car pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2023

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.377/15

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mr. Mukul Verma S/o Yogesh Kumar Verma R/o L-13 Naveen Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2..       3.         4.       5.	The Manager/Authorized Person Shiva Auto Car (India) Pvt. Ltd., 90, F.I.E., Patparganj Industrial Area   ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025   HDFC House No. 51 Kasturba Road Bengaluru 56001 (Deleted)   Authorized Person/Managing Director Yamuna Express Way, C-56/40, Sector 62 Noida, Uttar Pradesh   Shri Om Sai Crane Service, Hari Singh Market, Jhajhar Road Dankur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                       DATE OF ORDER  :

01.10.2015 15.03.2023 17.08.2023

 

 

                                                                          

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has 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 the Complainant had purchased a vehicle from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 19.04.2015 and paid an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs approx. and remaining amount was financed by the Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. HDFC Bank. The Complainant insured the said vehicle with the Opposite Party No. 2 on 19.04.2015 and Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 38,687/- to the Opposite Party No. 2. On 23.06.2015, the said vehicle hit against a big stone which was lying on Yamuna Express way custody of Opposite Party No. 4 towards Agra to Delhi. In the said accident, the engine of the said vehicle suddenly broke down and other machineries of the said vehicle were not in position to work in proper manner and due to said reason the said vehicle was carried by crane i.e. Opposite Party No. 5. After that the Opposite Party No. 5 handed over he said vehicle to representative of the Opposite Party No. 1 and expenses of the crane were paid by the Complainant. After that Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 made an inspection of the said vehicle on 24.06.2015 at the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. After inspection Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 denied to repair the said vehicle without making the payment because the engine was not cover under the warranty period. It is his case that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle the official of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 stated that the said vehicle was covered under the guarantee for a period of one year. It is his case that Opposite Party No. 2 stated that in case the insurance vehicle got accident or any damage within the insurance period the Opposite Party No. 2 fully liable to pay the entire expenses and other charges. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 assured the Complainant that the vehicle is under the guarantee period and the same would be re-place by Opposite Party No. 1 in proper manner. Complainant stated that from the date of purchase of the said vehicle till the date of the said incident, Complainant also made an oral complaint before the Opposite Party No. 1 regarding there was some mechanical problem in the said vehicle but official of Opposite Party No. 1 said that the mechanical problem should be removed at the time of first service of the vehicle. Complainant requested Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 4 to hand over the new vehicle instead of the said vehicle. Complainant also sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 3 but they did not give any reply. Complainant also stated that Opposite Party No. 4 is fully responsible to take care of the road because they has taken the toll tax from every vehicle. Hence, there is a deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 4 to pay the entire loss amount around    Rs. 6,50,000/- along with 18 % interest , to direct the Opposite Party No. 3 to close the loan account and to direct the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 4 to compensate the damages, mental pain and agony.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has purchased the car in question from it. It is stated that the allegations of the Complainant are false. It has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the case.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false. It is stated that there is no cause of action against it. It is sated that after the Complainant intimated it regarding the accident one surveyor was appointed by it. The said surveyor has inspected the vehicle in the presence of the Complainant. It is stated that the damages caused to the vehicle were not due to the impact of any accident. It is stated that the said damages were not covered under its policy.
4. During the pendency of the case, the Complainant has settled the matter with Opposite Party No. 3 and the name of the Opposite Party No. 3 was deleted form the array of parties.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 4

5. Opposite Party No. 4 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has not locus-standi to file the present case against it. It is stated that the said road is being maintained by M/s Jai Prakash Industries since February 2003 as per agreement entered into between it and M/s Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. It is stated that the Complainant has filed the complaint on the basis of false facts. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

8. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajesh Mehrotra, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

9. To support its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Vikash Goyal, Legal Manager,   wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 4

10. To support its case Opposite Party No. 4 has filed affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Sexana, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party No. 4, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 4 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 2, and Opposite Party No. 4.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No.4.
12. The case of the Complainant is that his car met with an accident on Yamuna express way on 23.06.2015. His case is that the car had hit against a big stone which was lying on the road maintained by Opposite Party No. 4. His case is that as a result of the said accident the engine of the car suddenly broke down and the car was not in a running condition. His case is that with the help of the crane the car was taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. The question is that whether in fact the car had met with the accident in the manner as told by the Complainant. The Complainant has not led any evidence in this regard. He has not taken any photograph of the spot showing the stone with which the car allegedly hit. After the accident the Complainant was supposed to intimate the Insurance company and the spot survey was to be conducted by the surveyor of the Insurance company. Instead of doing this the Complainant has himself took his car with the help of crane to the workshop of Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that after the car hit against the stone its engine stopped working. The Complainant has not led any evidence that any part of the outer service of the body of the car was damaged before hitting the engine. All the circumstances taken together indicate a doubt regarding the damage to the engine of the happening of the accident in the manner alleged by the Complainant.
13. The case of the insurance company is that after the accident was intimated to the company it had appointed a surveyor who had inspected the vehicle. It had filed the copy of the report of the surveyor. In his report the surveyor has stated that after the accident it seems that the insured try to start/move the vehicle and engine got seized due to leakage of engine oil. It is the case of the Insurance company that damage to the engine was not caused due to the accident rather it was due to the reason that Complainant try to move/start the vehicle and therefore, the said damage was not covered under the insurance policy. The relevant part of the report is reproduced as under:-

“SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

Cost of parts allowed                           256000.00                      34114.00

Cost of Labour allowed                        17100.00                       3206.00

Spot Labour & Towing Charges            4100.00                        1500.00

                                                                                                  38820.00

Less: Policy Clause                                                                   1000.00

Net Loss Assessed                                                                    37820.00

RECOMMENDATION

We assess and recommend a net loss of Rs. 37,820/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Only) on repair basis subject to the terms, conditions of the policy of Insurace.”

 

 

14. So far as the case of the Complainant against the Opposite Party No. 4 is concerned the Complainant has not led any cogent evidence regarding the negligence or liability on the part of Opposite Party No. 4 also the Complainant did not lead any cogent evidence that he was driving the vehicle with due care and caution. Therefore, we do not see any liability on the part of Opposite Party No. 4.
15. In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the Complainant is allowed in the following manner; (i) Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 37,820/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. (ii) Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.

 

16. Order announced on 17.08.2023.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)