Haryana

StateCommission

A/1065/2019

DR. RAJEEV VATS - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRICITY FORD AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SHYAM SINGH CHHOKAR

20 Nov 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.1065 of 2019

                                      Date of Institution: 25.11.2019

Date of order: 20.11.2023

 

Dr. Rajeev Vats, aged about 47 years S/o Sh. Satpal Vats, R/o H.No. 1382, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Tricity Ford (Ford Dealer), A unit of Rama Motor Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, Haryana through its authorized officer.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, Next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager/Authorised Officer.
4. Pearl Ford, Ford Dealer, NH-1, VPO Umri, G.T. Road, Kurukshetra through its authorised officer.
5. Sunil Chaudhary, Surveyor, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 4^th Floor, The Statement, Plot No. 149, Industrial Area, next to Hometel Hotel, Chandigarh.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr. Abinav Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2 &3.

                   Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present appeal No.1065 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2019of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.87 of 2018, which was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are thatin the year 2017, the complainant was interested to purchase a vehicle by replacing his old car Indigo sohe visited the showroom of Ford at Kurukshetra however the model of car of his choice was not available there and the officials of the said showroom suggested him to visit the office of Ford company at Panchkula which was being run under the name and style of Rama Motors Services Pvt. Ltd. On the advice of OP No.4, complainant he visited the said office which has been later on known by Tricity Ford i.e. OP No.1. On 11.12.2017, he purchased Ford Eco Sports 1.5 DSL TIT+ MT D. white HK 16687 for Rs.10,08,883/-, which was also got registered by complainant vide registration number HR-7Z-4400. OPs No.2 and 3 issued an insurance policy to the complainant on 19.12.2017 from the office of OP No.1. After issuance of the insurance policy, the said vehicle was delivered to him on 19.12.2017. Unfortunately some hard object hit on the wind screen of the car while being driven by complainant and the same developed a crack and as a result since complainant had immediately applied brakes due to some sudden hindrance therefore another vehicle, which was coming from the back also banged into his car in its back side and damaged the tail and bumper light of the car. He approached the OP No.1 for the repair of the car and even handed over the same to him on 16.04.2018. The OP No.1 took all the requisite documents from complainant and filled the form and got his signatures and assured that since the vehicle was fully insured and complainant has obtained zero depreciation policy by paying additional amount of Rs.5,070/-, therefore, he will not be required to pay anything to OP No.1 and whole amount will be claimed from the insurance company i.e. OPs No.2 and 3. Complainant received a phone call from OP No.5, who disclosed himself as Surveyor appointed by the OPs No.2 and 3. The OP No.5 inquired about the incident from complainant and also asked him to meet him personally and oblige him however complainant flatly refused to meet him personally and requested him to take appropriate steps as per law for redressal of his grievances. The OP No.1 assured complainant that he need not to go anywhere and their company will manage all the things. On 20.04.2018, when complainant approached OP No.1 and asked for the delivery of the car, then the OP No.1 handed over the car to the complainant by replacing the wind screen of the car and they charged an amount of Rs.1,000/- from him, but did not give any receipt alleging that these were the file process charges. Complainant inspected the car before taking the delivery and found that the tailand bumper light were not replaced and OP No.1 told that OP No.5 has flatly refused to clear the claim of the tail and bumper light, so they have not replaced the same. The OP No.1 delivered the car to him even without washing and cleaning the same. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to give the reasons in writing for the same and also requested to hand over the relevant papers, but OP No.1 flatly refused in this regard and OPs No.1 to 3 and 5 have adopted unfair trade practice and caused deficiency in service towards the complainant.

3.      In its written version, OP No.1 submitted that as and when the vehicle met with an accident, the incident has to be informed to the insurance company to get the vehicle inspected as per their rules. However the complainant has approached the OP No.1 for repair and also signed the intimation form. The car was delivered to the complainant after replacing its windscreen only as per claim passed by the insurance company. It was denied that the OP No.1 charged Rs.1000/- from the complainant. The car was delivered to the complainant on 20.04.2018 after complete washing and vacuum cleaning and same was accepted by the complainant expressing his satisfaction. The OP No.1 was not liable for extra repair at his own cost, which has not been passed in the claim by the OP No.5 on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3. So there was no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1.

4.      OP No.2, 3 and 5 filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. It was further stated that the complainant has concealed true and material facts from the Forum. OPs hasallowed the claim of the complainant for Rs.9,074/- as assessed by their IRDA approved Surveyor in his report. The complainant has also accepted the claim and even got encashed the cheque amount. The present complaint was without any cause of action and thus liable to be rejected as per the provision contained under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By denying all other contents of the complaint; OPs No. 2, 3 & 5prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.      OP No.4 also filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, OP No. 4 denied all the averments made in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.      After hearing all the parties, the learned District Commission, Kurukshetra has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 16.10.2019, which is as under:-

“Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case and the case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above as well as Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we are of the considered opinion that since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Kurukshetra, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint. Thus, we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction, if so advised, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint, shall be exempted. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any, attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.S.S. Chhokar, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Abinav Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3 and Sh. S.R. Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. With their kind assistance the entire record of appealas well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      It is admitted that complainant purchased Ford Eco Sports 1.5 DSL TIT+ MT D. white HK 16687 from Tricity Ford, Panchkula-OP No.1 and same was got insured with OPs No.2 and 3.It is also not disputed that OP No. 1 repaired the vehicle in question. It is also true that this complaint was filed under the old Act of 1986, wherein the complainant was not entitled to file a complaint before the District Commission established in the District of his own residence. So in the case in hand despite no cause of action ever arose at District, Kuruksheta, still the complaint was filed there only which of course was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction alone. However at the time of rejecting this complaint due opportunity was afforded to the complainant to approach the appropriate District Commission to agitate for redressal of his grievance and even relaxation for limitation was also permitted but instead of doing the needful, the original complainant has approached this appellate forum with this appeal. However  the legal proposition applied by District Commission cannot be negated, rather it has been rightly applied in the impugned order.  The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 16.10.2019.  The appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.      File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 20^th November, 2023

 

 

 

                                                                                                (S. P. Sood)                                                                                    Judicial Member       

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)