DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.591 of 2016
Date of institution: 15.09.2016 Date of decision : 22.11.2021
Sarabjit Kaur wife of Shri Karam Singh, resident of VPO Mullanpur Garibdass, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, Quite Office No.10, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh through its Manager Motor Claims.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited, 414, Vir Sawarkar Marg, Near Sidhivinayak Mandir, Prabhadevi, Mumbai through its Regional/Assistant General Manager.
3. M/s. Dashmesh Automobiles, Village Saylba Majri, District Mohali, Punjab through its Proprietor/Partner.
4. New Chandigarh Automobiles, Authorised Sales Service Police, Rathwara Road, Mullanpur Garibdas, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through its Proprietor/Partner.
5. Hero Motors Corporation Limited, 34, Community Center, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110057 through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Shri Arun Vohra, counsel for complainant.
Shri Simrandeep Singh, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
Shri Aksh Chetal, counsel for OP No.3 and 4.
None for OP No.5.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC purchased vehicle No.PB-65-Y-1682, Make Hero Maestro Scooter on 27.11.2013 from OP No.2, vide invoice No.438. The vehicle of the CC was duly insured with OP No.1 vide insurance policy No.3005/21163159/40142/000, which was valid from 27.11.2013 to 26.11.2014. It is alleged that the vehicle was giving problems from the very date of its purchase. The CC visited the office of OP No.3 and 4 many times for repair of the vehicle but they did not bother much about it. It is alleged that on 21/22.03.2014 in the midnight, the said vehicle caught fire, at the residence of the CC and its all documents i.e. service book etc. and fridge, bed and other household articles of the CC got burnt. The CC lodged the DDR on 05.04.2014 regarding the burning of the vehicle. The CC informed OP No.1 regarding the fire. However, OP No.1 vide letter dated 01.10.2014 rejected the claim of the CC.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought directions to the OPs to release the claim amount of the vehicle. The CC has further sought directions against the OPs to pay her Rs.3,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and loss of household property and costs. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply OP No.1 and 2 have raised a number of preliminary objections by stating that the CC has not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is further alleged that the vehicle caught fire due to mechanical fault. It is further alleged that OP No.1 and 2 had appointed a surveyor who submitted his detailed report that the alleged incident has taken place due to mechanical fault in the vehicle and that is why the fire had occurred. Further OP No.1 and 2 have termed the complaint as time barred. On merits, averments of the complaint have been simply denied by OP No.1 and 2 and they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
3. In separate replies filed by OP No.3 and 4, they have taken almost same preliminary objections which have been taken by OP No.1 and 2. On merits, they have simply denied the contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In reply, OP No.5 has stated that the complaint is vexatious and without any cause of action. It is averred that the answering OP has been impleaded only to cause harassment. The allegations in the complaint are vague in nature. It is averred that the complaint is time barred. It is further averred that at the time of the alleged incident the scooter was not running and it was simply parked and as such question of heating up and resulting in short circuit does not arise. The information about the incident was given to police almost after two weeks of the alleged incident. OP No.5 has also prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The CC in support of her complaint submitted her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. On the other hand, OP No.1 and 2 have tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Apurva Sharma, Legal Manager as Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4. OP No.3 and OP No.4 have only tendered in evidence affidavits of Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Prop. and Shri Navjit Singh as Ex.OP-1/3 and Ex.OP-1/4 respectively. OP No.5 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Shri Manish Syal as Ex.OP-5/1 and closed its evidence.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. Admittedly the vehicle of the CC bearing No.PB-65-Y-1682 Make Hero Maestro Scooter was insured with OP No.1 and 2. It is also admitted fact that on the intervening night of 21/22.03.2014 the said vehicle caught fire and service book etc. were also got burnt alongwith the vehicle. The CC lodged the DDR with the police on 05.04.2014. We have perused the DDR No.13 dated 05.04.2014 wherein the CC has specifically mentioned that on 22.03.2014 she came home at 4.00 a.m. and found that her vehicle was totally burnt. It is also mentioned in the DDR that the “vehicle on its own became hot and due to that the vehicle caught fire” and was totally destroyed.
She has further stated that this incident was sudden and natural and she does not see any mischief in it. The CC has further mentioned in her complaint that the vehicle, from the date of its purchase, was not working properly and that she has taken the vehicle to OP No.3 and 4 number of times for its repair. On the other hand, OP No.1 and 2 have submitted the report of Shri A.P. Singh, surveyor who has given his detailed survey report wherein it is mentioned that after thorough investigation from the insured as well as from the neighbours and further inquiries from the workshop and having look on the burnt vehicle and police report lodged, it is clear that the vehicle was giving trouble of heating up again and again and that the vehicle was also sent to the workshop of Hero at Mullanpur, but they did not replace the vehicle. Even after several requests of the insured the vehicle was returned back with the promise that the fault has been removed. But the vehicle again developed heating problem after the drive, so it is the liability of the dealer to compensate the insured because the vehicle was not working properly, from the very day of its purchase and it was in the knowledge of the dealer of the vehicle and even then he has not taken any action. Moreover, the police officials also recorded the statement of the insured in which it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle No.PB-65-Y-1682 was not working properly from the day of its purchase. We have also perused the written version of OP No.1 and 2 wherein it is mentioned that the damage to the vehicle is due to mechanical fault which does not fall under the purview of insurance. Further we have perused the insurance policy wherein it is clearly mentioned that in consideration of the payment of additional premium of Rs……. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy, it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer will indemnify the insured against loss of or damage to such electrical and/or electronic fitting (s) as specified in the schedule whilst it/these is/are fitted in or on the vehicle insured where such loss or damage is occasioned by any of the perils mentioned in Section 1 of the policy. The insurer shall, however, not be liable for loss of or damage to such fitting (s) caused by/as a result of mechanical or electrical breakdown.
8. From the perusal of averments of the complaint and the documents submitted by the CC, it is not made out that how actually and in what manner the vehicle got burnt. Even the DDR was lodged by the CC after a gap of 14 days. It is pertinent to mention here that during arguments it has been brought to our notice that the house of the CC is situated very near to the police station which is situated in the same area. The allegations of the CC appear to be doubtful. It appears that the CC has twisted the actual and true facts and has not approached this Commission with clean hands. There is no credible evidence or expert report of automobile mechanical engineer that the vehicle of the CC was suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect or it caught fire due to same or the other reason. Even the CC has not brought any evidence against OP No.3 and 4. In the absence of any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence or any expert evidence from the side of the CC, liability of OP No.3, 4 and 5 cannot be fastened.
9. Even there is no expert evidence from the side of the CC that the vehicle in question was having pre-existing mechanical fault which was detected by OP No.3 and 4 by visibly inspecting or by conducting some mechanical test. In such peculiar circumstances, we cannot make OP No.2 to 5 liable for any liability. As far as OP No.1 and 2 are concerned, it appears that the CC has suppressed the true and actual facts. Even the CC has failed to challenge the veracity of the report of the surveyor appointed by OP No.1 and 2.
10. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced
November 22, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
