Haryana

Ambala

CC/240/2015

Ram Mehar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Velocity Automotives (p) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Baldev Singh

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 240 of 2015

                                                        Date of instt:   01.09.2015.

                                                        Date of decision: 24.11.2017.

                                        

Ram Mehar son of Shri Ram Kishan resident of village Pindarsi, Post Office Sarsa Tehsil Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

1. Velocity Automotives (P) Ltd. Near Jandli Bridge, NH-1, G.T.Road Ambala City through its proprietor/authorized signatory/Manager.
2. Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, 4^th Floor, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 167/18C, Hazara Singh Bldg, 2^nd Floor, Ambala Cantt. Ambala through its Manager.

                                                                …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present: -  Sh. Baldev Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. S.R.Bansal, Adv. for OP No.1.

                Sh. Manish Kashyap,Adv. for OP No.2.

                Sh. R.K.Vig, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

ORDER

 

                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car Polo from OP No.1on 17.04.2013 and the same was allotted registration No.HR07T-2050. The complainant   got serviced the car from OP no.1 regularly and every time there was no defect in the same.  The car in question was insured with OP no.3 through Op No.1 vide cashless policy No.DY1301948713 having validity from17.04.2015 to 16.04.2016. Unfortunately, in the first week of July, 2015 the socket of the shocker of the car itself opened while driving the car and due to this minor incident Air Bag of the car were opened besides many other defects which is clear cut manufacturing defect.  Matter was intimated to OP No.1 who assured to remove the defects free of costs. After repair Op No.1 issued bill for Rs.3,13,253/-but Op no.1 demanded Rs.1,23,582/- from complainant on account of repair charges which the complainant had paid under protest despite the fact that the faults were to be removed free of costs.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.             Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies.  OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had claimed due to accident which had occurred to save the bike-rider resultantly his car put on the divider as per statement of the son of the complainant but in the claim form the complainant had mentioned that socket of the shocker of the car itself opened while driving the car and due to this air bag of the car also opened. The insurance claim was processed and estimate of Rs.3,57,137/-  was made and out of this amount the complainant had paid Rs.1,23,582/- on receiving of vehicle in the workshop after towing from Kurukshetra  to  Ambala.

3.                     OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that being a sales company it provides a warranty to the product for certain period through dealer on certain terms and conditions and before sale the vehicle has to go for various tests and its high standard safety features ensure trouble free and safe driving.  The complainant has made baseless allegations qua manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The claim sought by the complainant is an accidental claim and total repair cost thereof was Rs.3,13,253/- and the complainant had expressed his dissatisfaction for not sanctioning the claim of balance amount of Rs.1,23,582/- towards repair of the vehicle.  The warranty provided on the car was not guarantee as claimed by the complainant. Since the damage to the car was due to external reasons i.e. an accident, therefore, OP No.2 is not liable for the same under warranty. The car was brought to the dealer on 06.07.2015 for accidental repair after the vehicle had run 45500 KMs, therefore, the warranty does not cover the repair. In case of accidental damages the workshop of dealer is only expected to repair the car after insurance survey and after approval of claim by the insurance company or approval from the customer’s side on the payment basis. The survey report of the surveyor is based on his inspection and the same is independent, therefore, Op No.2 and dealer are not liable or concerned for not sanctioning the entire amount of repair cost by the insurance company  towards the insurance claim, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of complainant to pay the repair costs i.e. Rs.1,23,582/- which was not sanctioned by the insurance company.

4.             OP No.4 in its reply has submitted that after receiving the intimation qua vehicle damage loss surveyor Sh.Raman Chatwal was appointed who after physical verification assessed the loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs.189671/- and the complainant has executed claim discharge cum satisfaction voucher as full and final settlement which solves the issue finality for all times. The surveyor had assessed the amount after scrutiny of surveyor report and examination of documents and the payment was directly made to the OP No.1 as per policy terms and conditions.

5.             All the OPs have controverted the other allegations levelled in the complaint and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RX, Annexure R2X, documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6, Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 and Annexure R2-1 to Annexure R2-5.

6.                     We have learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.                     The complainant has come with the plea that the insurance company has not fully made the payment of repaired amount to the tune of Rs.3,13,253/- as the insurance company has only paid the amount of Rs.1,89,675/- to Op No.1 qua repair charges of the accidental vehicle and rest of the amount to the tune of Rs.1,23,582/- has been made by the complainant under protest due to wrong deduction of the insurance company. The insurance company had received the premium qua the vehicle in question, therefore, it was their duty to honour the full claim amount. Further, it has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the amount of air bag alongwith its attached equipments was to be borne either by the insurance company or by the manufacturer being manufacturing defect qua the air bag as it had just open due to minor incident and due to defect in the air bag and its equipments (module etc.) it were changed  being not repairable.

8.                             It is not disputed that the air bags in question were replaced by the Op no.1 and also charged the repaired costs including the cost of air bags and its equipments etc.

9.                             Now, this Forum has to see whether the insurance company has wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.1,23,582/- out of the total bill to the tune of Rs.3,13,253/-.

10.                           We have gone through the surveyor report AnnexureR1 as well as IRDA instruction placed on the case file during the course of arguments and learned counsel of the OPs has drawn our attention toward deduction for depreciation at the rates mentioned below in respect of the parts replaced:

                   All rubber/nylon/plastic part/tyre and

 tyre battries and all air bags                              50 %

                   Fibre glass component                                         30 %

All parts made of glass                                    Nil

         

The counsel for the OPs has also pointed out that the surveyor had rightly deducted the deprecation upto 50 % qua air bag, air bag units   as well as module.  As per the literature the vehicle is equipped with a diagnostic module which records information about the air bag system if the air bags deploy in a crash. The module records information about overall system status, which sensors activated the deployment, and for a certain vehicle only, whether the driver’s seat belt was in use. The counsel for the complainant has argued that in order to save the biker minor incident had taken place and thereafter the air bags open automatically due to struck with a divider and further argued that due to this minor incident air bag cannot be opened and it tantamount to a manufacturing defect.

11.           We have gone through the literature on this point, which is as under:

Note that even though your vehicle may be moderately  damaged in  frontal collision, the collision may not have been severe enough to trigger the air bags to inflate.

Moreover, as per warranty card the vehicle was having warranty of two years (Annexure R2-1), therefore, the plea of the complainant that the warranty qua the air bags was for whole time is not sustainable. However, as per the record the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 17.04.2013 and the alleged accident was occurred on 06.07.2015 which shows that at the time of accident the requisite warranty of two was already expired. The insurance company has rightly deducted the amount as per the report of surveyor.

12.                   Even otherwise, the complainant has settled the matter full and final as he himself has signed the satisfaction voucher Annexure R5 without lodging any protest, therefore, he has no right to agitate the matter again by filing the present complaint.

13.                     Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their costs. Copy of this order be sent to each of the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 24.11.2017                                 

                                                                            

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

MEMBER                               MEMBER                  PRESIDENT