DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Shefali Sharma wife of Pardeep Sharma, resident of G10/1, Ward No.4, Shanti Nagar, Derabassi -  140507.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1.       The New India Assurance Company Limited, New India          Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort,          Mumbai 400001 through its Managing Director.

2.       Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Mahindra Towers,       Road No.13, Worli, Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra, India.

3.       Sandeep Motors, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its        Manager.

4.       M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.26-B,      Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its      Manager.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

ARGUED BY : Sh.R.K.Kakkar, Counsel for complainant.

                       Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OP No.1.

                       Sh.Krishan Singla, Counsel for OPs No.2 & 4.

                       OP No.3 exparte.

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Smt.Shefali Sharma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs). The allegations of the complainant in brief are as under :-

                   The complainant purchased one Scorpio Jeep with M Hawk 2.2L engine on 27.5.2010 and insured the same with OP No.1 vide cover note dated 27.5.2010, copy of which is Annexure C-1, after making payment of premium of Rs.23,835/-. The declared value of the vehicle was Rs.8,54,000/-.  At the time of availing the insurance, the complainant was informed that OP No.1 offers cashless facility to all its customers and in case of any accident or any other insurance claim, the claim would be settled at the door steps of the complainant. The complainant was informed by the executive of OP No.3 i.e. the dealer from whom the complainant purchased her vehicle that their dealership had a tie up with OP No.1 and in case of any accident etc. the insured vehicle would be dealt on priority basis and the complete claim would be cashless and hassle free.  That the said vehicle met with an accident on 14.8.2010 after the breaking system of the same failed completely. The vehicle rammed/collided with a stationary trolley and suffered great damage. The vehicle was towed from the spot to the workshop of OP No.3. The husband of the complainant deposited the vehicle with OP No.3 and he was informed that since the matter was of technical nature, no repairs could be carried out till the same was completely examined by the Engineer of the company. The complainant and her husband waited patiently for a response from the side of OP No.3 but when no response came, they themselves contacted OP No.3, who stated that the engineer had inspected the vehicle and the complainant was required at the workshop of OP No.3 in Patiala for completing the required insurance formalities for availing the cashless insurance benefit. The complainant along with her husband visited the workshop of OP No.3 and she was informed that estimate of repair job had been prepared and it was handed over to her.  It was also informed that there was no break failure and there was only a minor leakage in the break chamber and the oil had leaked and the same would be repaired.  The husband of the complainant also told that there was a regular beep in the car/jeep stating check engine and the vehicle was also getting heated up often to which OP No.3 replied that these problems had also been dealt with by the engineer and the functions in the vehicle were interrelated and a common microchip governed the functioning and the same would be changed. The complainant received a call from OP No.3 in the first week of September, 2010 and she was informed that the vehicle was ready.  The complainant along with her husband reached the workshop of OP No.3 for taking delivery of vehicle and she was asked to fill up certain forms. She was informed that cashless benefit of insurance could not be processed and she was required to make the complete payment either through cheque or by cash.  The copy of the final bill is Annexure C-2.  The complainant objected to the said demand because she was informed that the claim would be cashless but OP No.3 stated that her vehicle could only be released if she makes the complete payment of the repair bill.  The complainant spoke to the Managing Director of OP No.3 and finally they relented and stated that she needed to make part payment of Rs.15,000/- and the remaining payment would be made by way of an undated cheque, which could be presented only in case the payment/refund from the insurance company was not released. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim for the same with OP No.1 and asked the reasons of non processing of the cashless claim benefit.

                   It has been further contended that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the complainant was informed that there was another part in the vehicle, which needed to be changed, which was not readily available. The complainant started using the vehicle but noticed that the problem of engine over heating and the check engine beeper was still existing.  The breaking system of the vehicle was still not effective. When the complainant contacted OP No.3 and apprised them of the situation, they replied that she would have to bring the vehicle to Patiala. The complainant knew that the vehicle was not in a position to be driven all the way to Patiala so she decided to have the vehicle checked from the agent of OP No.2 in Chandigarh i.e. OP No.4. The staff of OP No.4 kept the vehicle under scrutiny for more than six hours and they informed the complainant that the vehicle was suffering from severe overheating. The complainant at the time of handing over the vehicle to OP No.4 also informed them that the vehicle was emanating noises from various parts and breaking problem, for which the repairs were carried out by OP No.3.  According to the complainant, the regular problem with vehicle left only one logical conclusion that if suffers from inherent manufacturing defects. Either the vehicle sold to the complainant was an old vehicle or a demo vehicle after being refurbished was sold to her. The complainant received the vehicle from OP No.4 after requisite repairs. The complainant has contended that due to the inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, she could not enjoy riding the same and she had been cheated by OPs No.2 and 3.  The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 to 3. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to OP No.1 to release the amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest ; OP No.2 to replace the defective vehicle supplied to her and further OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 lac as compensation on account of harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.3 did not appear despite service and it was proceeded exparte on 14.2.2012.

3.                OP No.1 in its written reply has pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the policy of insurance was issued by Divisional Office, Patiala, claim was lodged at Patiala, claim of the complainant was paid by Divisional Office at Patiala, in accordance with the survey report of surveyor and the offices of OPs No.2 and 3 do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been averred that if there is some manufacturing defect then OP No.1 is not liable to indemnify the complainant. Copies of insurance policy, survey report and claim disbursement voucher are annexed as Annexure R-1/A to R-1/C.  It has also been stated that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has tried to mislead the Forum. It has been further stated that the accident in question took place on 20.8.2010 and not on 14.8.2010 as pleaded by the complainant.

4.                OP No.2 has pleaded in its written reply that intricate and contentions question of fact and law are involved, which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence, which cannot be adjudicated by way of summary procedure. It has been averred that there is no manufacturing defect much less deficiency in service as also there is no unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.  It has been averred that OP No.2 sells the product in bulk quantity to its dealers all over India and in return they sell them in the market on retail basis by doing further billing.

5.                OP No.4 in its written reply has also taken the same pleas, which have been taken by OP No.2.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7.                After perusing the entire evidence and hearing the arguments of both the sides, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

8.                It is significant to note that the said Scorpio Jeep was purchased by the complainant from OP No.3, who is carrying on business at Patiala (Punjab). The copy of the cover note/insurance policy – Annexure C-1/R-1/A shows that the said vehicle was insured with Divisional Office of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. at Patiala. The copy of Final Survey Report – Annexure R-1/B shows that the accident in question had taken place near Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab. The Motor Claim Form – Annexure R-1/D shows that it was submitted to the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Patiala. The payment voucher dated 1.12.2010 – Annexure R-1/C also shows that it was issued by the office of OP No.1 at Patiala and was received by agent of OP No.3 at Patiala. Hence, no part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. Though the complainant has alleged that she also got repaired the vehicle later on from OP No.4 at Chandigarh but no document of repair has been produced to corroborate this allegation. Even if it is assumed that the vehicle was also got repaired from OP No.4 at Chandigarh, it does not mean that a part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. The complainant has pleaded in para No. 19 of the complaint that OPs No.1 to 3 have been deficient in rendering services. OPs No.1 and 2 are having their offices at Mumbai and OP No.3 is carrying on its business at Patiala. Though the complainant has pleaded in para No.23 of the complaint that OPs are carrying on their respective business at Chandigarh and have their office at Chandigarh, yet the title of the complaint itself shows that OPs No.1 to 3 against whom deficiency in service has been alleged in para No.19 of the complaint are carrying on their business at Mumbai and Patiala. OPs No.1 to 3 are not actually and voluntarily carrying on business at Chandigarh. No part of cause of action arose to the complainant at Chandigarh. Consequently, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Since this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint, we do not deem it appropriate to deal with the remaining issues involved in the complaint.

9.                For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs with the observations that the complainant may seek the appropriate remedy before the District Forum/Court having jurisdiction to try the matter.

10.               The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.