DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 130 of 24-03-2011

Decided on : 29-07-2011

Ramesh Kumar Verma aged about 55 years S/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o # 15, Housefed Colony, Dabwali Road now resident of #6, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd./, Second Floor, Jiwan Deep Building, 8 Parliament Street, New Delhi through its CMD /GM /Chairman /President

2. Senior Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., CDU Ferozepur.

3. Senior Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall, Bathinda.

4. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122015 through its MD/Chairman/GM/President

5. Tara Automobiles Bathinda, Opposite ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Partner/Prop/MD.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Sh. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Amanpal Singh Sekhon, counsel for opposite party No. 5.

Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 1 to 3.

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 4.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new Maruti Swift Desire on 21-10-2009 manufactured by opposite party No. 4. He got the warranty extended from opposite party No. 4 for three years. The complainant got the car registered vide registration No. PB-03U 6316 and also got it insured from opposite party No. 2 vide policy No. 400098770 effective from 21-10-2010 to 20-10-2011. On 10-02-2011, when the complainant was coming from Abohar to Bathinda, he said car struck with a bull all of sudden as the bull ran from the fields and struck with the car. The complainant gave intimation to opposite party No. 3 and it deputed Sh. Dinesh Kumar surveyor to assess the damage to the car. The said surveyor directed the complainant to get the car repaired from opposite party No. 5 who onward directed him to get the denting and painting from Krishna Automobiles Namdev Road, Bathinda. The complainant paid Rs. 34,500/- to opposite party No. 5 and Rs. 20,800/- to Krishna Automobiles, Bathinda. The complainant alleged that opposite parties are not entitled to get anything from him as the car is within warranty issued by opposite party No. 4. The complainant submitted all the documents with opposite party No. 3, but the opposite parties are adamant not to make the payment. Hence, he has filed the present complaint.

2. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed their separate written reply and pleaded that after receipt of intimation regarding the accident, the opposite parties deputed Sh. Dinesh Kumar Goyal as surveyor to conduct survey and assess the loss, he conducted survey of the vehicle on 11-02-2011 at M/s Krishna Autos, Bathinda and assessed the loss at Rs. 16,726/- vide survey report dated 24-02-2011 after applying depreciation and other provisions as per terms and conditions of the policy and IMT. The complainant also executed consent letter accepting the said assessment and also agreed to get Rs. 16,726/- as full and final settlement of the claim. The payment was being processed and in the meantime the complainant filed the present complaint due to grievance against opposite party No. 4 and 5. The payment of Rs. 16,600/- has already been made to the complainant vide cheque No. 158267 dated 11-4-2011. The opposite parties have pleaded that they are concerned only with the amount of damages suffered by the car in the accident and the due amount of payment against the said damaged has already been made to the complainant.

3. The opposite party No. 4 filed separate written reply and pleaded that it was not privy to the transaction alleged to have happened between the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and 5. The accidental repairs are not covered under Clause 4(d) of warranty policy. The matter in dispute relates to and arises of accidental repair for which complainant has entered into independent contract with the workshop and Insurance company. The complainant with ulterior motive had been making demand which is beyond the scope of warranty. The opposite party No. 4 has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer and the relationship between it and the dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis. The warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms, conditions and limitation provided at the time of sale by dealer which is part and parcel of sale contract. The complainant to his entire free will paid the additional premium to dealer for availing facility of extended warranty. It has been stated that complainant took the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No. 5 on 21-02-2011 at 54,455 Kms for obtaining running repairs. The complainant reported speedometer not working, reverse gear lights not working, centre locking not working etc., The vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert service engineer of the workshop in the presence of the complainant. Upon observation, it was discovered that the vehicle was found fitted with unauthorised/local fitments such as hooter (siren) relay, headlamps of 90-100 watt. Etc., accessories not approved by opposite party No. 4 in contravention terms of warranty as per clause 4(e), (f), (g) & (h). The original wiring settings were found tampered due to aforesaid fitments, resulting into major defect i.e. short circuit in wiring harness and Body Control Modul (BCM). Since the alleged repairs and replacements are not covered under the ambit of warranty, the complainant to his entire will and volition allowed opposite party No. 5 to carry out repairs i.e. replacement of wiring harness and other necessary replacements on normal terms. The complainant paid the consideration to opposite party No.5 and took the delivery of the vehicle after service to his entire satisfaction and without any protest and demur.

4. The opposite party No. 5 in its separate written reply has pleaded that the complainant never visited its workshop for the repair of the car in question nor opposite party No. 5 ever asked the complainant to take the car to Krishna Automobiles, Namdev Marg, Bathinda because opposite party No. 5 has big workshop with all modern equipments for repairing, denting and paining of vehicles and as such, there was no reason for asking the complainant to take the car in question to Krishan Automobiles, Bathinda. The complainant for the first time came to the workshop of opposite party No. 5 on 21-02-2011 for speedometer non working; reverse gear lights non working; centre locking and power steering nor working. The complainant did not disclose regarding any accident. The opposite party No. 5 provided the necessary repairs to the car in question vide Job Card No. JC10015496 dated 21-02-2011 and charged Rs. 34,500/- from the complainant. The complainant was fully saitsfied with the service provided by opposite party No. 5 and satisfactory note was also signed by the representative of the complainant of being fully satisfied on 3-3-2011 while taking the delivery of the car and since then, he never visited the workshop of opposite party No. 5. It has been pleaded that complainant had unauthorizedly got fitted Hooter (siren) relay and head tube lights make 90-100 watt. Instead of 12 Volt. & 60/55 watt. From outside in the car in question which resulted in damage/short circuit the writing harness of the car. The warranty of product of Maruti Suzuki car does not cover any defect caused by misuse, negligent, abnormal use or insufficient care, any vehicle which has been modified or altered, including without limitation, the installation of performance accessories and any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used, rather it leads to termination of warranty. The amount of Rs. 34,500/- has rightly been charged from the complainant.

5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift Desire Car bearing registration No. PB-03-U6316 purchased from opposite party No. 5, manufactured by opposite party No. 4 and comprehensively insured with opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 vide policy No. 400098770 for the period from 21-10-2010 to 20-10-2011. The complainant got the extended warranty from opposite party Nos. 4 for 3 years.

8. The complainant has stated in para Nos. 3 & 4 of his complaint that on 10-02-2011, when he was coming from Abohar to Bathinda, all of sudden a bull came in front of car and stuck with it and the car was badly damaged. The complainant gave intimation to opposite party No. 3 and it deputed Sh Dinesh Kumar, Surveyor to conduct survey and assess the loss. The opposite party No. 5 repaired the car and charged Rs. 34,500/-and directed the complainant to get the denting and painting from Krishna Automobiles, Bathinda. The said Krishna Automobiles charged Rs. 20,800/- from the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he is not liable to pay anything for repair either to opposite party No. 5 or to Krishna Automobiles as his car is under warranty and he paid the aforesaid amount under protest.

9. The complainant has signed the Satisfaction Note vide Ex. R-19 after receiving the car in question after repairs wherein it has been written that car has been repaired to his entire satisfaction. Ex. R-20 is the Job Card vide which Rs. 34,500/- have been charged by opposite party No. 5 being the charges for parts and labour. The complainant claims that he is not liable to pay any charges as his car is covered under extended warranty Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5. Ex. R-21 is the terms and conditions of the Warranty. Condition No. (4) Limitation of the said Warranty is reproduced hereunder :-

   “(5) Limitation :-

   This warranty shall not apply to :

   ........4. any repairs or replacement required as a result of accidents or collision.

   .......6. any vehicle which has been modified or altered, including without limitation, the installation of performance accessories.

   .......7. any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used.”

10. Condition No. B) of warranty conditions and coverage R-28 reads as under :-

    “B) List of Components not covered :

    This is limited list of important items not covered :

    ......i) Any repair of replacement required as a result of accident or collision.

11. Since the complainant has himself admitted the fact that his vehicle met with an accident on 10-02-2011. He got the repair work done from opposite party No. 5 on 21-02-2011 and did not disclose the fact regarding accident. Hence, keeping in view the above said warranty conditions he is not entitled to any relief under the warranty conditions from opposite party No. 4 & 5. Moreover, a perusal of Job Card issued by opposite party No. 5 Ex. R-17 reveals that complainant has got fitted in his Car a Hooter (Siren), Relay and Head Tube Lights make 90-100 Watt etc., which is in violation of aforesaid warranty.

12. As mentioned above, the car in question is insured with opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 vide Ex. C-2. It met with an accident. The complainant intimated the Insurance Company and it deputed the surveyor namely Sh. Dinesh K. Goyal. The said surveyor inspected the accidental vehicle at M/s. Super Automobiles, Bathinda and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 16,736.35 ( minus Rs. 125/- as salvage value) after observing the extent of damage and according to estimates furnished to him by the complainant, vide his survey report Ex. R-7. The opposite parties paid the claim amount to the complainant during the pendency of this complaint vide Ex. R-6 as assessed by the surveyor who arrived at the figure of Rs. 16,736.35 (minus Rs. 125/- salvage value) after applying depreciation as per rules and regulations. Although this Forum is of the view that the opposite parties paid the right claim to the complainant yet there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 as they have failed to convey the basis of deductions made by the surveyor while assessing the loss and the complainant had to knock the door of this Forum for getting his claim as he being a non-technical person in this field was not aware of this fact. Hence, he is entitled for litigation expenses only.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with cost of Rs.1000/- against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos. 4 & 5. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

29-07-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member