Delhi

New Delhi

CC/565/2015

Kashish Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ring Road Honda Bas Engg.Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.565/2015                                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

                Kashish Chawla

              S/o Sh. Joginder Chawla,

M-55, Pratap Nagar

Delhi-1100077                                                                                                                     ……..Complainant

VERSUS

1.A Ring Road Honda Bas\Engg. Pvt. Ltd.

Ground Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan,

28, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

Also At:

1.B A/2 Udyog Nagar,

Industrial Area,

Rohtak Road,

New Delhi-110041                    

          

2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.

A-2, II floor,

Main Najafgarh Road,

Kirti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015                                                                                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a brand new Honda-City 1.5 SV MT Model Car on 15.01.2015. The invoice value of the car was Rs. 9,93,900/-.  The car  was purchased with a Bank- loan of Rs, 8,80,929/- from Kotak Mohindra Prime Ltd (Car Finance Divn. ) and the balance of Rs. 1,12,971/- was paid by the complainant to the dealer and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant vide vehicle  release order CF – 11191662 dated 15-01-15. As the vehicle was a brand new car it did not have any permanent registration number but do had a temporary number only.
2. The complainant got the delivery of the vehicle on 15.01.2015 as is clear from the vehicle gate pass issued by OP-1. Immediately thereafter, the complainant and family took the car to Gurudwara Nanak Piao near Model Town in North Delhi and parked the vehicle in regular  parking near the gate of the Gurudwara. The complainant came back with Gurudwara Priest for Pooja and Ardas, he did not found the vehicle and as such the complainant approached the nearest police station and lodged a complaint which was converted into an FIR no. 55/15 dated 15.01.2015. Time of reporting was 8:40 PM. 
3. It is stated that OP-1 only issued one original key with electronic chip and retained the other one under the pretext that same shall be released on receipt of RC. The claim has already been filed with OP-2 and a survey was conducted by one Sh. Vikas Kumar and claim no: 000792312-A was generated on 22.01.2015 at 2:34 PM, despite this nothing has been done by the OPs to settle the genuine claim, hence, this claim.
4. Complainant has been contested by both the OPs. In its written statement, OP-1 denied any deficiency in service and further stated that the vehicle in question was insured with OP-2 and as such OP-2 is liable to owner the claim in question. It is further stated that a set of standard two keys were given to the complainant at the time of delivery of car which is clear from the delivery receipt/gate pass place on record and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. OP-2 filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the complainant provided two original ignition keys of the vehicle and after verification of the same, one key was found original and other key found to be a local key. Complainant was requested to hand over  the keys for verifying but complainant refused to do so under the pretext that matter is with police and the their legal department had refused to give any such details to OP-2. The complainant had left the original key of the said vehicle unattended due to which theft of the vehicle took place. Since the theft was due to own negligence and carelessness of the complainant, therefore, complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as per clause no. 4 of policy terms and conditions, hence the claim is rightly repudiated.
6. All the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit.
7. We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.
8. Perusal of the complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts on various issues such as :-

1. Whether the OP-1 had issued two original keys to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle in question?
2.  The complainant has alleged in his complaint at para 15 that  only one original key was issued to him by OP-1, then the question arises that the other key shown to the OP-2 for getting the claim is a duplicate one or not and if, it was duplicate then how he was in the possession of the duplicate key?
3.  As the complainant refused to submit both the keys to the OP-2 for inspection, so the report filed by the investigator on record could not be taken as a complete report in deciding the present dispute.

9. Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.
10. In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint involves complicated issues which required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the present complainant cannot be adjudicated by way of Summary Proceeding; hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law.

 

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be    also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 13/05/2019

                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                         (H M VYAS)

    MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER