Haryana

Ambala

CC/81/2023

JAI BHAGWAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,GLOBE AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K SINGH ,ADV.

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	81 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	01.03.2023
Date of decision	:	27.08.2024

Jai Bhagwan, Prop. Bunty Travels, H.No.358, Near Saini Depot, Babyal, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. The Managing Director, Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Spring Field Public School, NH-22, VPO Sadopur, Distt. Ambala (Haryana).
2. The General Manager Service, Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Spring Field Public School, NH-22, VPO Sadopur, Distt. Ambala (Haryana)
3. The Service Manager, Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Spring Field Public School, NH-22, VPO Sadopur, Distt. Ambala (Haryana)

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Gursewak Singh Antal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and harassment, mental torture, agony, harassment and financial loss, to the complainant,
2. To pay cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/-

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is running a Travel Agency under the name and style of Bunty Travels and is the proprietor of the same and the complainant owns many vehicles. The complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing no.HR-37E-3189, Innova Criysta 2.4 G and the same is registered at the office of R.T.A, Ambala. Registration. Unfortunately, the above said vehicle met with an accident on 19.11.2022 at Dappar, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) and immediately the complainant on the advice and instructions of the insurance company brought the vehicle to the workshop of OPs i.e. Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd. situated at VPO Sadopur (Ambala) and deposited the said vehicle on 19.11.2022 at 6.00 p.m. to the workshop for repair of the same. At the time of deposit of the above said vehicle, the OPs gave estimated delivery time of 11 days i.e. on or before 01-12-22 but the vehicle was delivered on 8.12.2022 i.e. after 7 days of the estimated time.  The complainant is running Travel Agency and during this peak season of marriages, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3000/- per day due to the negligence in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant served a legal notice dated 23.12.2022 upon the OPs to compensate him for the said delay but to no avail.   Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; complaint qua commercial vehicle cannot be filed before this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated that the vehicle in question was reported at the gate on 19.11.2022 i.e. on Saturday at 6:50 PM. As 20.11.2022 was Sunday, being weekly off, therefore, the estimate of repair of vehicle in question was prepared on the first very working day i.e. on Monday 21.11.2022. In the document-Estimate Date of Delivery of vehicle in question, tentative date of delivery was given as 03.12.2022. Thus, the delivery date was tentative which sometimes vary due to factors/reasons beyond the control of the OPs. It was also apprised to the complainant that the vehicle repaired under Insurance Claim can only be delivered to the complainant after receipt of Delivery Order (DO) by the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question. The complainant at that point of time or any time thereafter has not apprised the dealership of the OPs that he is in any immediate requirement of repaired vehicle and will suffer any loss due to delay in delivery of vehicle, as has been alleged in the present complaint.. There is no delay of any kind on the part of the dealership of the OPs or any of its official as alleged by the complainant. Thereafter the claim was intimated to the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question on 22.11.2022 and survey of the vehicle in question was done by the concerned Insurance Company on 23.11.2022. The copy of Claim Details form showing Claim Intimation date is annexed herewith as Annexure OP- 3. The approval to start the repair works of the vehicle in question was given verbally by the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question on 24.11.2022. It was only after the approval of the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question and of the complainant to start repair work and bear the depreciation and other amount not approved by the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question, the repair work of the vehicle in question was started by the dealership of the OPs and Job Order was opened accordingly. Thereafter the vehicle in question was repaired by the dealership of the OPs and same was ready for delivery on 1.12.2022 after its accidental repair i.e. well within the estimate date of delivery given to the complainant and the Final Bill/ Pre Invoice was also forwarded/ sent to the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question for their record on 02.12.2022 itself and for issuance of Delivery Order so that the vehicle be delivered to the complainant. The concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question vide their e-Mail dated 08.12.2022 issued Delivery Order (DO) to the dealership of the OPs. Thereafter the same was informed to the Complainant by the dealership of the OPs and complainant lifted the vehicle in question from the dealership of the OPs without any protest after making the balance amount/ depreciation amount not approved by the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question. Procedural delay in issuance of Delivery Order (PO) by the concerned Insurance Company of the vehicle in question cannot be attributed to the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Mr.Vinod, Body Shop/Service Manager of the OPs –Globe Toyota (Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd.) Village Sadopur as Annexure OP-1,2,3/A, alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1,2,3/1 to OP-1,2,3/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not delivering the vehicle in question by the committed date and thereby delaying in delivery thereof, lot of mental agony and harassment was caused to the complainant. He further submitted that the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that vehicle in question was repaired by the dealer of the OPs and same was ready for delivery on 1.12.2022 after its accidental repair i.e. well within the estimate date of delivery given to the complainant. He further submitted that procedural delay in issuance of Delivery Order (PO) by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle in question was insured cannot be attributed to the OPs.
8.           It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant after repairs on 08.12.2022. The learned counsel for the complaint has vehemently contended that there is a delay of 7 days, in delivery of the vehicle in question by the OPs, after carrying out accidental repairs, whereas on the other hand, they were bound to hand over the same on 01.12.2022, as is evident from Annexure C-6.  It may be stated here that the insurance company sent the email dated 07.12.2022, Annexure OP-7, to the OPs regarding approval of the claim and thereafter, on the very next day i.e. 08.12.2022, the vehicle in question was delivered by the OPs to the complainant.   Since, there was delay on the part of the insurance company in approval of the claim, as such, for its fault the OPs cannot be held responsible.
9.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case against the OPs, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced:- 27.08.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President