State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs Pritpal Singh & Ors. on 23 September, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1040 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 14.06.2010.
Date of Decision: 23.09.2013.
Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Registered Office, Plot No.1, Nelson
Mandela Road, New Delhi-110070.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Pritpal Singh S/o Sh. Narinder Singh, R/o C/o M/s Goptal Singh
Ram Singh, Main Bazar, Malaut (Punjab).
2. M/s T.R. Sawheny Motors Pvt. Ltd., East Gokal Pur, Main
Wazirabad Road, Delhi-110094.
3. M/s Hira Motors Pvt. Ltd., Muktsar (Punjab).
4. The New India Assurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Jeevan
Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
06.05.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:- Sh. Parmod Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 Exparte.
Ms Sarita Sangar, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3. Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.4. INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Maruti Suzuki India Limited, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.05.2010 First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 2 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Pritpal Singh, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP-1, OP-5 and respondents no.2 to 4, making the assertions that OP-1 (not made party in the appeal) is the manufacturer of cars under the make of Maruti, having different models through its network and respondents no.2 & 3 are authorized dealer of OP-1 for the service and repair of the vehicles, sold to the general public under the conditions and guidelines of OP-1.
3. Respondent no.4 is the insurance company, having tie-up with OP-1 regarding the insurance of the vehicles sold by OP-1. OP-1 has released a scheme for its customers that if the customer purchases the insurance from OP-1 for his vehicle, then in the event of any accident, OP-1 shall repair the vehicle without charging any money from the consumer. OP-1 shall prefer the claim to respondent no.4 for the loss and get it appropriated against the bill. This scheme was called 'Cashless Scheme'.
4. Respondent no.1 purchased one Swift Dezire VDI car on 29.04.2009 from respondent no.2, who is a dealer of OP-1 and opted for cashless scheme and an amount of Rs.17,309/- was charged by respondent no.2 and it was shown in the final bill. Respondent no.2 issued policy No.460024740 in favour of respondent no.1 and the vehicle purchased was insured with respondent no.4 w.e.f. 29.04.2009 to 28.04.2010.
5. On 12.07.2009, respondent no.1 was going to Jaipur along with his family and when he reached near Sirsa, a stray dog hit the car First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 3 and the car was badly damaged. Respondent no.1 towed the vehicle and brought the same to respondent no.3 and it was repaired and an amount of Rs.28,304/- was mentioned as costs in the estimate bill. Respondent no.1 relying upon the insurance policy visited the office of respondent no.3 on 18.07.2009 to take delivery, but respondent no.3 refused to deliver the vehicle, unless the bill of Rs.28,304/- was paid. Respondent no.1 asked respondent no.3 to get the reimbursement from respondent no.4 in the light of cashless scheme, but respondent no.3 after going through the record, told that the vehicle has not been insured, because no payment was received by the company. Respondent no.1 asked respondent no.3 to inquire the matter from the higher authorities and from respondent no.2, but respondent no.3 refused to do so.
6. On checking on online, it was found that the amount has not been deposited with the insurance company. Respondent no.3 even did not agree to take the payment through cheque and respondent no.1 was shocked to see the adamant attitude of respondent no.3 and the working of the appellant and respondents no.2 to 4, including OP-1. The appellant and respondents no.2 to 4 and OP-1 are deficient in rendering service and respondent no.2 has received the insurance premium and issued the policy, but the same was not deposited with the insurer. Respondent no.1 suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment.
7. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.2 to 4 as well as OP-2 may be directed to release the car No.PB-53-A-7479 without claiming the bill of repairs from respondent no.1 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses, Rs.10,000/- as expenses for hiring substitute vehicle, Rs.2,000/- as First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 4 towing charges and Rs.1200/- per day for hiring the vehicle on daily basis.
8. In the written version filed on behalf of OP-1 and OP-5 (Not made party in the appeal), preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is false and frivolous and is bad for mis-joinder of parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. There is no material to substantiate the claim and the complaint is the abuse of the process of the law. It was further submitted that OP-5 is a corporate agent of M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Insurance premiums go to the insurance company and not to the answering OPs. The only benefit to the insured, who avails the insurance through the answering OPs, is that of nationwide cashless schemes, post accidental repairs at authorized dealers, workshops, using Maruti general parts and other benefits which are subject to terms and conditions of the insurance company and the OPs have no role to play.
9. On merits, it was submitted that OP-1 is a reputed car manufacturer, engaged in manufacturing of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles (cars). OP-1 sells the vehicles so manufactured by it through its dealers under the dealership agreements. The answering OP no.1 neither invoices nor earmarks any individual vehicle in favour of any individual customer at the time of dispatch from its factory to its dealer. Relationship between OP-1 and the dealer is on 'principal to principal basis'. OP-1 being manufacture of the car in question gave warranty for a specific period as set out in the owner manual of the service and the service book supplied to respondent no.1 at the time of sale by respondent no.2, which is part and parcel of the sale contract. Respondent no.1 entered into contract for purchase of vehicle from First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 5 respondent no.2 and paid consideration to respondent no.2 and the answering OPs have not provided the contract. Respondent no.1 obtained the insurance policy of respondent no.4 and paid the insurance premium to the said company through respondent no.2. OP-5 is just a facilitator on behalf of the insurance company and no amount was paid to the answering OPs. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.2, similar preliminary objections were taken. It was further submitted that there are so many disputes raised and the civil court is competent.
11. On merits, it was submitted that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the scheme of cashless was not cleared and taking of the amount regarding the insurance is a matter of record. Respondent no.1 has to prove the contentions. The answering respondent has already paid the amount to the insurance company. The insurance company did not raise any demand regarding the said amount till today. The amount was deposited by way of cheque. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
12. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.3, preliminary objections were raised that the answering respondent repaired the accidental vehicle which was brought on 15.07.2009 and bill regarding the repair and spare parts etc. was Rs.28,340/-. When respondent no.1 insisted to get the amount of the bill through insurance, then it was found that the insurance amount was not deposited and he was asked to deposit the same. Respondent no.1 insisted to give a cheque of his brother, but the officials of the answering respondent refused to take the same. On 03.08.2009, the status of the insurance policy on net was 'cleared' and the answering respondent informed First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 6 respondent no.1. After receiving the depreciation amount from respondent no.1, the vehicle was delivered on 03.08.2009 after completing all the formalities and respondent no.1 signed the satisfactory note. Now, he has no locus standi to file the complaint.
13. On merits, it was admitted that OP-1 is the manufacturer of cars and respondents no.2 & 3 are the authorized dealers of OP-1 for the service and repair of the vehicles, sold to the general public. Respondent no.4 is the insurance company, having tie-up with OP-1, regarding the insurance of the vehicles sold by OP-1 through its network. It was also admitted that the vehicle was brought to respondent no.3, who repaired the vehicle and raised the bill of Rs.28,340/-. It was also admitted that respondent no.3 refused to deliver the vehicle, unless the bill of Rs.28,340/- was paid. It was also admitted that respondent no.1 asked respondent no.3 to get the reimbursement from respondent no.4 in the light of cashless scheme, but respondent no.3 after looking into the record, told that the vehicle has not been insured, because no payment has been received. Offering of payment through cheque was also admitted. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
14. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.4, preliminary objections were taken that respondent no.1 has concealed the material facts. In fact, the vehicle of respondent no.1 was insured with the answering respondent and the same was got repaired from Hira Automobiles, Muktsar and the answering respondent appointed Sh. Ajay Gupta, Surveyor for the re-inspection of the vehicle bearing No.PB-53-A-7479 and he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.24,834- First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 7 51p and that amount is payable. On the request of respondent no.1, the answering respondent released the amount of Rs.24,834-51p to Hira Automobiles, Muktsar and delivery of the car was given to respondent no.1 to his satisfaction and there is no deficiency in service.
15. On merits, it was admitted that the answering respondent is the insurance company and has tie-up with OP-1 regarding the insurance of vehicles and the cashless scheme was released. It was also admitted that respondent no.1 purchased a Swift Dezire VDI car on 29.04.2009 and a sum of Rs.17,309/- was charged by respondent no.2 in the final bill, as premium for cashless scheme and the policy was issued which was valid from 29.04.2009 to 28.04.2010. It was further submitted that respondent no.3 repaired the car and delivered the same to respondent no.1. The repair amount was paid by the answering respondent to respondent no.3 to which respondent no.1 was entitled as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Denying other allegations, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
16. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
17. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that none of the appellant, respondents no.2 to 4 and OP-1 & OP-5 have found any fault with respondent no.1. OP-1 is a big company and all others are under its command. By offering cashless scheme, OP-1 allured the customers to keep them in its hold and mint money, even out of accidents. The terms and conditions Ex.OP-2 are nothing, but a bundle of waste papers. The supreme law is the law enacted by the Hon'ble Parliament of India. Respondent no.1 has been put to hardships and has been harassed. OP-1 was directed First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 8 to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as punitive damages out of which Rs.2.50 lacs shall be paid to respondent no.1 and Rs.2.50 lacs shall be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund. OP-1 was directed to comply the order within two months of the receipt of copy of the order, failing which interest @ 7-1/2% p.a. was payable.
18. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.05.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
19. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents no.1, 3 & 4.
20. Respondent no.2 has not contested the appeal and was proceeded against exparte.
21. Respondent no.1 purchased one Maruti Swift Dezire VDI car from respondent no.2, who is authorized dealer of OP-1. Respondent no.2 also issued the policy in question bearing No.460024740 in favour of respondent no.1 and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no.4 from 29.04.2009 to 28.04.2010. OP-1 is admittedly the manufacturer of Maruti cars and respondent no.2 is its dealer. Respondent no.1 has not placed on record any scheme released by OP-1 or the appellant, to purchase the insurance policies from OP-1.
22. As state above, respondent no.2 is dealer of OP-1 and it was through respondent no.2, the insurance policy was taken from respondent no.4-New India Assurance Company Limited. The relationship of respondent no.2 and OP-1 as well as the appellant is on 'principal to principal basis'. The Hon'ble National Commission in case "Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr.", 2009 (3) First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 9 CLT-560, relying upon the authorizes of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the relationship between the dealer and manufacturer is one of the 'principal to principal basis' and not as 'principal to agent basis'.
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana & Anr. Vs Shakti Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd.", 2009 (3) RCR (Civil)-447 (SC), held in Para-16 (relevant portion) as follows:-
"The averments in the complaint by the consumer cannot be taken as a Gospel truth. To support a finding of "unfair trade practice", there has to be some cogent material before the Commission and any inferential finding is not sufficient to attract Section 2 (r) of the Act. Of course, the burden of proof, the nature of proof and adequacy thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
24. In view of the above proposition of law laid down, it is clear that that neither OP-1, nor the appellant is bound by the acts of its dealer i.e. respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 has failed to prove that any scheme was launched by the appellant/OP-1 for issuance of insurance cover. The District Forum has not taken notice of the same and observed that by offering cashless scheme, OP-1 allured the customers to keep them in its hold and mint money, even out of accidents. The District Forum has made these observations on the basis of conjectures and surmises, whereas there is nothing on record to prove that any such scheme was launched and the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
25. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 06.05.2010 passed by the First Appeal No.1040 of 2010 10 District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint filed by respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
26. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
27. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.09.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
28. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member September 23, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)