Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/906/2019

Sanjay Kumar Jangra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/906/2019
Date of Institution	:	03/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	17/10/2022

Sanjay Kumar Jangra s/o Satbir Singh Jhangra r/o CEN-322, Near Airport Chowk, Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Charisma Goldwheels (P) Ltd., Plot No.7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Unit No.C-113-114, First Floor, Office Suites, Elante Mall, Plot No.178-178-A, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
3. New India Assurance Company Ltd., SCO No.2939-40, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh.N.P. Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh.Amrit Pal Singh Kahlon, Counsel for OP-2
	:	Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OP-3

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh.Sanjay Kumar Jangra, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is the registered owner of Hyundai i20 car bearing registration No.CH01-BN-3914 (hereinafter referred to as the “car in question”), which was insured with OP-3 vide cover note (Annexure C-2) for the period from 21.7.2017 to 20.7.2018. In the month of June 2018, the rear tail light area of the car in question was damaged and it was taken to the authorised repairer (OP-1) and was handed over to it for repair work. The surveyor of OP-3 had inspected the vehicle.  On completion of repair work, complainant was informed by OP-1 that he can collect the vehicle. The bill for repair work was raised for a sum of ₹12,343/-. Accordingly, the complainant visited the office of OP-1 to take the car, but, he was shocked to see that the rear tail light was not fitted properly and asked the mechanic to remove the same. The complainant was shocked to see that the metallic sheet, which was cracked, had not been replaced and, therefore, he refused to take delivery of the car. Thereafter, complainant approached OPs 2 & 3 to replace the entire boot of the car, but, the same was not replaced by them.  Rather after drilling a hole, the tail light was fixed. The complainant took photographs of the car in question and the same were sent to the General Manager of OP-1 and thereafter he had taken delivery of the car on 9.7.2018 after making payment of ₹1,000/-.  As OP-1 did not bother to replace the boot of the car despite of the fact that it was covered under the insurance policy, the same proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  OPs were requested several times to replace the boot of the car, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written replies. In its written reply, OP-1 took preliminary objections of maintainability and also that the complainant has abused the process of law by filing a false consumer complaint.  It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and an amount of ₹1,000/-  was paid by the complainant being his share under the policy and after taking delivery of the car, he has raised the issue for replacement of the entire boot.  It is denied that the rear tail light was not properly fitted.  Maintained, without express approval of the OPs, answering OP could not have replaced the boot. Prayed complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs.
3. In its separate written reply, OP-2 denied that the entire boot was damaged by alleging that in fact the complainant has been abusing the process of law and the complaint be dismissed for concealment of facts.  It has been stated that accidental repairs are not covered under the warranty of HMIL (OP-2).  Moreover, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP.  Prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be dismissed.
4. OP-3 in its separate written statement, took preliminary objections of maintainability and also that the complainant has been abusing the process of law. The repair work of the car in question was completed as per the loss assessed by the surveyor who was deputed by the answering OP.  Even at the time of disbursement of claim amount, as the complainant had not made any protest, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. It is further alleged that in fact the complainant has stated contradictory facts while filling the claim form as well as in the correspondence through email.  On merits denied the allegations made by the complainant.  Prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be dismissed.
5. In separate rejoinders, complainant re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for claim as prayed for?
3. Whether the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable?

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Admittedly, complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle in question, as is also evident from the copy of RC (Annexure C-1).  It is further an admitted case of the parties that, at the relevant time, the car in question was insured with OP-3 w.e.f. 21.7.2017 to 20.7.2018, as is also evident from copy of the cover note (Annexure C-2).  As per the case of the complainant, the car in question met with an accident as a result of which the rear tail light area of the vehicle was damaged and when the aforesaid car was handed over to OP-1 for repair, same was not properly repaired by it and as the complainant has requested for replacement of the entire boot of the car, and since same was not replaced, OPs are liable to pay the claim as set up in the consumer complaint.  On the other hand, the defence of the OPs is that since the repair work of the car in question was completed by OP-1 and there was no damage to the entire boot of the car in question, the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, be dismissed.
6. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed or if the consumer complaint, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
7. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the complainant and learned counsel for OPs, are discussed as under:-

 

 

1. At the very outset it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the car in question met with an accident in the month of June 2018 and he had requested OP-1 to repair the rear tail light area of the same and since the same was not done by the OPs properly, the complainant is entitled for the claim whereas the defence of the OPs is that since the car was repaired for the damage caused to it, which was required to be done, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant is entitled for the claim, as prayed for, or if consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.
2. The complainant contended with vehemence that as the photographs (Annexure C-3) clearly indicate that the car in question was not properly repaired by the OPs despite of the repeated requests of the complainant, he is entitled for the claimed amount.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as the complainant is habitual of filing false complaints and has also concealed material fact that he had reported about the accident of his car 10 times at authorized workshops, out of which 5 times the car had been reported for accidental repair with OPs, as is also evident from Ex.OP-2/2, the complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed.
3. At the time of arguments, parties have not disputed that the complainant has filed another consumer complaint (No.907 of 2019) qua the same incident against OPs 1 & 3.  The record of the said consumer complaint was also perused and one thing is clear from the said record that qua the same incident, complainant has stated that on the aforesaid date his car was found damaged when the same was found parked in the parking area of Sector 26 light point near Sulabh Sochalya and was damaged by a loading three wheeler from right side both doors, quarter panel and back side bumper around 11:30 a.m. and on the same day when he was going back to his home a two wheeler rider coming from wrong side at exit point near Sulabh Sochalya hit front bumper on the left hand side.  However, nothing has been disclosed by him in the said consumer complaint if the rear tail light area of the car was also damaged.  Not only this, even the claim form (Annexure R-3/C) duly signed by the complainant nowhere states that the rear tail light area of the car in question was damaged, rather he has stated that only right side of the car in parking area near Sector 26, Chandigarh alongwith front and rear bumper were scratched by a loading three wheeler. Had the rear tail light area or the boot of the car in question damaged in the said accident, complainant ought to have disclosed this fact in the claim form submitted by him to OP-3. Not only this, even the email conversation of complainant with OPs 1 & 2, Annexure C-7, reveals that the complainant had disclosed about the damage to his car on its right side front and rear door, quarter panel, front LH bumper and fender, rear bumper with scratches and does not disclose about any damage to the boot of the car which further falsifies the claim of the complainant that the boot of the car was damaged in the said accident.  Not only this, from the facts of the other consumer complaint No.907 of 2019 and the instant consumer complaint, it is clear that the complainant has misused the process of law by seeking two claims of the same incident and claiming that his car was damaged on the relevant date, time and place and by stating facts which are contradictory to the documents produced by him before this Commission.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly he is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

Point No.(iii)

9. Since the complainant is a consumer within the meaning and scope of Consumer Protection Act, it is unsafe to hold that the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. 
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 17/10/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member