State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mukesh Kumar Jindal vs Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 25 November, 2022
C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 19.05.2017
Date of hearing: 30.08.2022
Date of Decision: 25.11.2022
COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 935/2017
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL,
S/O LATE MR. PREM CHAND,
R/O 5/31, FLAT NO.8, GAJJU KATRA,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032
(Through: Mr. Ajay Malviya, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
7B, GROUND FLOOR, PUSA ROAD,
OPP. RACHNA CINEMA & METRO PILLAR NO.153,
REJENDRA PARK, NEW DELHI-11060
ALSO AT:
2ND FLOOR, D.D.A. BUILDING,
VARDHMAN TRADE CENTER, NEHRU PLACE,
DELHI-110060
2. T&T MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
(DEALER OF MERCEDEZ-BENZ PASSENGER VEHICLES),
REGD. OFFICE GA-2, B-1, EXTN,
MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110044
3. T&T MOTORS PVT. LTD.,
(DEALER OF MERCEDEZ-BENZ PASSENGER VEHICLES),
BRANCH OFFICE: H-953-954,
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 9
C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-III, SITAPURA,
TONK ROAD, JAIPUR
4. DALMIER FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE: UNIT NO.202,
IInd FLOOR CAMPUS -3B,
RMZ, MALINIYA BUSINESS PARK,
143, DR. M.G.R. ROAD,
PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI-600096
5. MR. SWADESH KUMAR DHAMIJA,
J52A, TAGORE NAGAR, BEHIND DCM,
AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR-302021,
MOB: 9829010332
EMAIL: [email protected]
(Through: Mr. Naveen Kumar
Chauhan for Opposite Party No.1,
Mr. Chandan Malik for Opposite
Party No.2&3 and Mr. Chetan
Kumar Shukla for Opposite Party
No.4)
... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: None for the Parties
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 9
C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant before this Commission alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) " allow the present petition/ complaint and
b) grant Rs.21,75,320.40/- on account of final cost of repair of the above said vehicle directing the respondents to pay the same to the complainant and
c) further grant Rs. Rs.43,17,58.19/- on account of supplementary cost of repair of the said vehicle directing the respondents to pay the same to the complainant
d) further grant Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental tension, Rs.3,00,000/- on account of agony, Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of work, Rs.3,00,000/- on account of loss reputation, Rs.2,00,000/- on account of loss of mode of transport etc. totalling to Rs.20,00,000/- directing the respondents to pay the same to the complainant and
e) further grant Rs.55,000/- on account of litigation expenses directing the respondents to pay the same to the complainant and
f) further grant pendent lite and future interest @18% per annum from the date of accident of the vehicle of the complainant i.e. 21.12.2016 till its realization and
g) further grant the respondent to give custody of another similar Daimler Mercedez Benz GLA 2000 CDI Sports car to DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS the complainant for transportation till the final disposal of the present complaint and
h) further direct the respondents to not to charge any money on account of parking charges of his car and
i) further maintain the car of the petitioner in good running condition as good as a brand new car till the final disposal of the case and
j) pass such other or further order which this Hon'ble Forum deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant purchased a Mercedez Benz GLA 200 CDI Sports car from the Opposite Party No.2 by availing financial service of the Opposite Party No.4. Further the Complainant took insurance policy for the said car from the Opposite Party No.1 bearing no. 4177713 for an insured value of Rs.33,21,000/-. Thereafter the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party No.1&3 about the said accident. The said vehicle of the Complainant met with an accident at Kotputli Road, Near Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan and the engine oil of the car leaked. Thereafter, on 22.12.2016, Deputy Manager Service of the Opposite Party No.3 informed him to fill the claim form and asked for relevant documents which were supplied by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2. On 21.12.2016, the Deputy Manager of the Opposite Party No.3 sent a preliminary estimate of Rs.21,75,320/- for approval and then sent a supplementary estimate of Rs.43,17,58.19/- stating that settlement will be done on non- cashless basis and after insurance approval and customer approval. The deputy Manager Service of Opposite Party No.3 wrote a mail to DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS Swedesh Kumar Dhamija/Opposite Party No.5. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.5 requested for performa invoice and labour pictures. On 23.01.2017, Opposite Party No.3 wrote an email to Opposite Party No.5 stating that they still standby the preliminary estimate in which they strongly recommend to replace the engine of the subject car. On 01.03.2017 Opposite Party No.3 informed Opposite Party No.5 that the said vehicle is lying in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for further approval as to what steps should be taken to resolve the issue. On 08.03.2017, the Opposite Party No.3 informed the Opposite Party No.5, enclosing final performa of the vehicle stating that it has been repaired as per approval given by him. Further, on 14.03.2017 Opposite Party No.3 informed Opposite Party No.5 about enclosing invoice after repair for settlement totalling to Rs.1,95,000/- only thereafter, on 15.03.2017 the Opposite Party No.5 informed Opposite Party No.1 regarding the same. The Opposite Party No.1 wrote a letter to the Complainant asking him to submit a cancelled cheque and duly signed CKYCR Form, otherwise the said claim of the Complainant will be closed. Despite mentioning the replacement of the engine by the Opposite Party No.3 which could cost Rs.21,75,320.74/-, the Opposite Party No.1 declined to accept the same through Opposite Party No.5 and only approved repair of the engine. The Complainant informed multiple times that the said car is not fit to be driven on road to the Opposite Party No.1&5, but they were not willing to certify the car to be roadworthy and fit for road test and no satisfactory reply was sought from the Opposite Parties. Thus, left with no other option, alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant approached this Commission.
DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
3. The Opposite Parties have separately filed their written statements and contested the present case wherein the Opposite Party No.1 has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the decision and approval of the repair cost is taken on the basis of Surveyor Report. Moreover, the cost of repair was approved as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but the Complainant did not shared his account details for the payment of the approved amount for repair of the insured vehicle. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has also contended that the vehicle was also repaired as per approval of the replacement of the external parts therefore; the decision to make the payment of the parts of repair was taken on the basis of the report of the Surveyor. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
4. The Opposite Party No. 2&3 contended that the Complainant has alleged any dispute between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2&3. Moreover, the Complainant has surrendered the said vehicle on 12.10.2017 back to the Opposite Party no.3 which is the finance company upon default of the repayment of the loan amount; therefore, the Complainant ceases to be consumer. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2&3 prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
5. The Opposite Party No.4 further contended that the role of the Opposite Party No.4 is only to provide financial assistance to the public for purchasing vehicles and the Opposite Party No.4 is not related to processing/payment of the insurance claim or carrying out repairs or services. The counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 further DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS contended that the present complaint lacks cause of action against the Opposite Party No.4. Pressing the aforesaid objections, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4 prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.
6. The Complainants has filed their Rejoinder rebutting the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties. The Evidence by way of affidavits and written arguments of Complainants and Opposite Party No.1, 2&3 have been duly filed by the parties.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, 2&3.
8. Before delving into the merits of the present case, we found that the Complainant has surrendered the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party No.4 i.e. the financer on 12.10.2017 on account of default in schedule of the repayment of the loan taken for the purchase of the said car. Surrender Letter from the borrower to the Opposite Party No.4 (Annexure-OP2&3 with the reply on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2&3)
9. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to the dicta of the Hon‟ble National Commission in Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. vs. Hazoor Maharaj Bala Das Rajji Chela Baba Dewa Singhi (Radha Swami) pronounced on 25.09.2013 in R.P. No.2562, wherein it has been held as under:-
"8....As complainant had already sold the vehicle during pendency of complaint without permission from District Forum, he ceases to be consumer under the Consumer Protection Act...
15. In the light of the above observations, we find that as complainant, did not remain consumer after sale of vehicle and he has sold the vehicle without permission of District Forum and has supressed this fact and has not approached the courts with clean hands. Complaint is liable to be dismissed and revision petition is to be allowed."
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022
MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS
10. In the case of, M/s Honda Cars India Ltd vs. Jatinder Singh Madan & Anr., pronounced on 11.10.2013, in R.P. No. 2622 of 2012, the Hon‟ble National Commission has held as follows:-
"5. Perusal of copy of Registration Certificate proves facts of transfer of vehicle by complainant to Amrit Pal Singh and in turn to Rajinder Bawa, Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has nowhere submitted that vehicle was transferred during pendency of appeal with the permission of State Commission....
7. ..... because we have already held that complaint ceases to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and in such circumstances, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole count..."."
11. From the aforesaid dicta of the Hon‟ble National Commission, it flows that in those cases, where the subject vehicle has been sold without the permission of the Commission, the Complainant ceases to be a Consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. The instant complaint has been filed on 19.05.2017 and as per the surrender documents it is clear that the Complainant has defaulted the repayment against the purchase of the vehicle in question therefore, he surrendered the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party No.4. Further, no document has been brought on record by the Complainant to prove that the surrender of the vehicle in question was under protest or involuntary.
13. Hence, soon after the vehicle was surrendered, without protest and without the permission of this Commission, the Complainant ceased to be a Consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, making this Complaint untenable before this Commission.
14. Therefore, keeping in view the law settled by the Hon‟ble National Commission and the facts of the present case, we are of the view that DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 9 C/935/2017 D.O.D.: 25.11.2022 MR. MUKESH KUMAR JINDAL VS. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS the Complainants do not fall in the category of „Consumer‟ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and legal position explained supra, we are of the considered view that since the Complainants are not "Consumers", the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.
16. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
17. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
25.11.2022 DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 9