National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S A.B. Motors Private Ltd. vs M/S Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 15 April, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1588 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 28.04.2006 in Appeal No. 28/2006 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh) M/s A.B. Motors Private Ltd. Through its Managing Director Plot No.53, Industrial Area, Phase-II Chandigarh Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Sh. Chander Mohan Goyal 8 M.W., Industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh 2. M/s Ford India Pvt. Limited Through its CEO, India S.P. Koil Post Chingalputtu-603 204 Tamil Nadu Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhruv Wahi, Advocate & Ms. Reeta Mishra, Advocate Pronounced on 15th April, 2010 ORDER
Per S.K. Naik, Member M/s A.B. Motors Private Limited are the petitioners in this revision petition. They are dealer of M/s Ford India Pvt. Limited for the sale of Ford vehicles.
They were Opposite Party No.1 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Union Territory, Chandigarh (District Forum for short). They are aggrieved that the District Forum, on a complaint of Respondent No.1, M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd., who had purchased from them a Ford Ikon diesel car, has directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.34,378/-, being the balance amount spent on the repairs and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
This award of the District Forum, when challenged in appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (State Commission for short) has also been upheld by the State Commission. Having suffered the two consecutive adverse orders that, the petitioner/dealer has filed this revision petition.
Facts of the case, narrated in brief, are that when the Managing Director of Respondent No.1, the complainant, had parked his car outside his residence, it started emitting smoke in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd of January, 2004. Due to the alertness and timely intervention of the complainant, the situation was redeemed with no further loss to the vehicle. However, for the repair of whatever damage the car had suffered, the complainant took it to the workshop of the petitioner/dealer.
Allegedly, the petitioner/dealer asked the complainant to pay for the repairs on the ground that the damage caused due to defective electrical material was not covered under the terms of the warranty. The plea of the complainant that the vehicle was very much within the period of warranty and that the warranty covered failure of mechanical and/or electrical parts and, therefore, he was entitled to the free repair fell into deaf ear.
The petitioner/dealer is further alleged to have avoided undertaking the repair on the plea of seeking a clarification from the manufacturer etc. When repeated pleadings with the petitioner/dealer to repair the car failed to elicit any positive response, the complainant applied for insurance claim for the damage. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the damage, who quantified it at Rs.95,527.63. However, the complainant spent Rs.82,366/- for repair of the car but the Insurance Company reimbursed only an amount of Rs.36,288/-.
Contending that the petitioner/dealer was liable to make good the balance cost of repair i.e. Rs.46,078/- (Rs.82,366/- Rs.36,288/-) since the vehicle was under
warranty, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint. The District Forum as already stated above not only directed the petitioner/dealer to reimburse the balance amount spent by the complainant for repair of the car but also awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. This has been upheld by the State Commission.
The short point for consideration in this revision petition, therefore, is as to whether the complainant would be entitled to claim the balance amount from the petitioner/dealer when he has filed his claim before the Insurance Company, who have only partly reimbursed the expenditure incurred by him on the repair of the vehicle? The answer to this, in our view, would be in the negative. This was a case where allegedly there was short-circuit in the electrical system of the car while it was parked in the static condition at the residence of the complainant. Whatever damage was caused because of the short-circuit has been treated to have been covered under the policy by the insurance policy. The complainant has not come forward with any allegation against the Insurance Company that they have reimbursed only a part of the expenditure on repairs but has shifted the other part of the claim to the petitioner/dealer on the ground that the vehicle was under the warranty.
If it was the case of the complainant that certain parts of the vehicle or the electrical system was defective and he was entitled to the rectification of the defect or replacement of such parts under the terms of the warranty, he ought to have pursued his case with the petitioner/dealer and the manufacturer but having treated it to be a case of accident and having filed a claim before the Insurance Company, obviously he could not go back to the petitioner/dealer and seek the other part of the claim.
Clearly, both the fora below have failed to appreciate that the complainant having approached the Insurance Company and obtained the relief, though not to his entire satisfaction, could not lay a claim on the petitioner/dealer. The orders passed by the fora below, thus, are not sustainable and are hereby set aside, resultantly the complaint is also dismissed.
The revision petition succeeds and is allowed, however, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh