State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Pvt. ... vs Gurdial Singh And Others on 6 January, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.726 of 2022
Date of institution : 22.08.2022
Reserved on : 07.12.2022
Date of decision : 06.01.2023
Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Private Limited (formerly known as
Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd.), having its Registered Office at 1,
Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070, through its
Authorized Signatory Surendra Srivastava, Chief Executive Officer
(CEO).
....Appellant
Versus
1.Gurdial Singh, resident of L-4/480, Gali No.4, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
.....Respondent
2. Jaycee Motors, NEXA Gateway Jaycee, NH-1, G.T. Road, near Amritsar Gate, Amritsar, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
.....Proforma Respondents Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Sh. G.S. Bhandal, Advocate and Ms. Nitika Garg, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. P.S. Chahal, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate 2) First Appeal No.796 of 2022 Date of institution : 14.09.2022 Reserved on : 07.12.2022 Date of decision : 06.01.2023 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, through its Authorized Representative.
....Appellant First Appeal No.726 of 2022 2 Versus
1. Gurdial Singh, resident of L-4/480, Gali No.4, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
2. Jay Cee Motors, NEXA Gateway Jaycee, NH-1, G.T. Road, near Amritsar Gate, Amritsar.
3. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
.....Respondents For the appellant : Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. P.S. Chahal, Advocate For respondent No.2 : None For respondent No.3 : Sh. G.S. Bhandal, Advocate AND 3) First Appeal No.853 of 2022 Date of institution : 10.10.2022 Reserved on : 07.12.2022 Date of decision : 06.01.2023 Jaycee Motors, NEXA Gateway Jaycee, NH-1, G.T. Road, near Amritsar Gate, Amritsar, through its Manager/Authorized Person ....Appellant Versus
1. Gurdial Singh, resident of L-4/480, Gali No.4, Kot Atma Ram, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
3. Maruti Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, through its Manager/Authorized Person.
.....Respondents Appeals under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the same order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President First Appeal No.726 of 2022 3
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the appellant : None
For respondent No.1 : Sh. P.S. Chahal, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. G.S. Bhandal, Advocate for
Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate
..................................................................................
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT By this order of mine three Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.726 of 2022, First Appeal No.796 of 2022 and First Appeal No.853 of 2022 shall be disposed off as the same have been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short the "District Commission") whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant Gurdial Singh has been allowed by issuing directions to the appellant/OP No.3 to refund the amount towards repair charges i.e. Rs.1,87,145/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 08.09.2020 till its realization. Further a direction has been issued to the appellant/OP No.2 and OPs No.1 and 2/respondents No.2 & 3 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. OPs have also been debarred to use the logo of Maruti Insurance with the sign of Maruti at the time of issuing the policy to its customers and also to file an affidavit in this regard before the District Commission within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the First Appeal No.726 of 2022 4 order. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the complainant was held entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of the District Commission.
2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, all the three OPs have filed their separate appeals before this Commission.
3. First Appeal No.726 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/OP No.3- Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Private Limited, through its Chief Executive Officer.
4. First Appeal No.796 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/OP No.2- Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Authorized Representative Sh. Nitin Sharma, Deputy General Manager.
5. First Appeal No.853 of 2022 has been filed by the appellant/OP No.1- Jaycee Motors Nexa Gateway Jaycee, through its Manager/authorized person.
6. There was a delay of 27 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.1363 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay in filing of said appeal. The delay was condoned vide order dated 18.12.2022 passed by this Commission and said M.A. was disposed of accordingly.
7. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.726 of 2022 filed by Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Private First Appeal No.726 of 2022 5 Limited (OP No.3) (formerly known as Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited).
8. The complainant Gurdial Singh while filing Consumer Complaint No.764 of 2019 before the District Commission has mentioned in the complaint that he purchased one Car S-Cross for his personal use in the month of August 2017 for Rs.11,78,020.86 paise. The warranty period of said car was upto 19.08.2019. An additional amount of Rs.17,358.98 paise was paid by the complainant to OP No.1-Jaycee Motors NEXA for the extended warranty of the said car which was extended upto 18.08.2021. An accident occurred with the said car of the complainant in the month of April 2019 which was driven by son of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh. The son of the complainant made a number of calls on the numbers given by the OPs but no person of the OPs visited the place of accident to tow the accidental vehicle. Further it has been mentioned that the son of the complainant moved the vehicle with the help of some private persons and also deposited the job card issued by OP No.1 (Ex.C-3) in the workshop of OP No.1. This fact was informed by OP No.1 to OPs No.2 and 3 being the Insurance Company of the vehicle, who insured the vehicle. OP No.1 assured the complainant at the time of the sale of the vehicle that he was responsible for the act of both the OPs No.2 and 3 i.e. Manufacturer and Insurance Company. OP No.1 was the sole agent of OPs No.2 and 3 for the purpose of sale of vehicle as well as for insurance purposes. The vehicle was lying with OP No.1 but still the vehicle was not repaired within the reasonable time inspite of assurance given to do the needful within a period of one week from the First Appeal No.726 of 2022 6 date of accident i.e. 12.04.2019. OP No.1 offered one old vehicle to the complainant for his daily use but it was not in running condition as it was without any valid document and insurance. Thereafter, the said vehicle was returned by the complainant under protest to OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant hired a private vehicle for his daily use for which the complainant had to bear the expenses approximately of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further it has been mentioned that OP No.1 sent a telephonic message to the son of the complainant on 13.09.2019 as vehicle was ready and Rs.1,39,550/- was demanded as per invoice Ex.C-6. Further it was mentioned that the complainant was not to pay the said amount towards repair charges to the OPs as the vehicle purchased by him was fully insured by the OPs and said vehicle was within the warranty period.
9. Stating the act and conduct of OPs to be of 'deficiency in service' as well as 'unfair trade practice' due to which the complainant had suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and also financial loss. The complainant has prayed for issuance of direction to be issued to the OPs as under:-
"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Forum may be directed to the opposite parties that withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.1,39,550/- from the complainant and refund amount of traveling expenses from the period from 12.04.2019 to September 2019 Rs.1,00,000/-, and refund of the amount of insurance which were borne by the complainant approximately Rs.15,000/- for a period of April 2019 to September 2019 and compensation in lieu of harassment to the complainant and his family for not using First Appeal No.726 of 2022 7 the vehicle of the complainant for a long period of five months Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.33,000/- and any other relief to which this Hon'ble Forum deemed fit for the circumstances narrated above and further relief of insurance \/expenses and travelling expenses borne by the complainant till the decision of this complaint."
10. Upon notice issued to the OPs, they appeared through counsel and filed separate replies. The averments made in the complaint were denied by the OPs by raising certain preliminary objections. The other averments made in the complaint were denied and controverted by filing detailed written reply.
11. On appraisal of contents of the complaint filed by the complainant and also the replies filed by the OPs and on hearing the oral arguments raised by the counsel representing the complainant as well as the OPs, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the following directions as mentioned in para 16 of the order:-
"16. So keeping in view the above facts as above, this Commission has no hesitation to hold all the opposite parties i.e. opposite parties No.1 to 3 in connivance with each other are guilty of mis-leading complainant as per Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 ,which amounts to unfair trade practice as per section 2(I)(r) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with section 2(28) of the New Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence pass the following order by giving the following directions :-
(i) That the opposite party No.3 will make good of the loss caused to the vehicle and to refund back the repair charges i.e. Rs.1,87,145/- as the complainant has got released the vehicle First Appeal No.726 of 2022 8 during the pendency of this complaint by making payment of the repair charges i.e. Rs.1,87,145/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 8.9.2020 till its realization. Further the complainant as a buyer has been misled by the opposite parties by giving a false representation on Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5, they are also liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Further the opposite parties are debar from using the logo of Maruti Insurance with the sign of Maruti at the time of issuing the Insurance policy to its customers and opposite party No.3 will file affidavit in this regard before this Commission within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission."
12. Said order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is the subject matter of challenge in all said three appeals.
13. Mr. P.S. Chahal Advocate, learned counsel representing the appellant/OP No.3-Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited First Appeal No.726 of 2022 9 (F.A No.726 of 2022) submits that the impugned order has been passed by the District Commission without appreciating the evidence available on the record. The order has been passed by considering only the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant not the OPs. The complainant had also suppressed certain material facts before the District Commission whereas those facts were in his knowledge. The complainant had also concealed a material fact that the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited being the Insurance Company of the car was approached. The claim has righty been rejected by the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited. The complainant has not impleaded Insurance Company as party in the complaint with the reasons best know to him. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has also not considered the emails exchanged between OP No.2 and the complainant which were also exhibited and annexed with the written version and the same were necessary to reach to the right conclusion. The impugned order is also against the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of case "Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal" 2008(17)SCC-491 as well as of case "Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra" 2009(4)SCC-684. The District Commission has also gone beyond the pleadings and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the District Commission are totally wrong and are based on conjectures and surmises. Ex.C-4 and C-5 as relied by the First Appeal No.726 of 2022 10 complainant are self speaking documents which clearly show that the logo of 'Maruti' with words 'Maruti Insurance' indicated so that everybody could understand and distinguished with the naked eye that the insurance was not of Maruti Insurance or the Maruti was just a broker. However, this aspect has not been considered as it should have been. This fact was specifically mentioned that "This is not a part of the policy document. Please Detach Here" but said words have not been taken into consideration and the findings have been recorded without giving any emphasize to said words. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of case "Lakhanpal National Limited Vs. MRTP Commission" 1989(3)SCC- 251 whereas it was not applicable. It has further been mentioned that the District Commission has noted down the contentions raised by the appellant/OP No.3 but no findings have been recorded and there is no such discussion. Further it has been submitted that the District Commission has not given any reason as to how the judgments relied upon in the impugned order were applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. In First Appeal No.796 of 2022. Mr. Salil Sabhlok Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant/OP No.2-Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Manufacturer) submits that no averment has been made in the complaint to show any 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the present appellant/OP No.3 and the complaint has been filed which is an abuse of process of law and to get undue benefit. This fact has not been taken into First Appeal No.726 of 2022 11 consideration by the District Commission while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant was never interested in paying the amount for repair of the vehicle and due to that reason the complainant had to file complaint. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant was not entitled for any benefit as per the terms and conditions of the policy and it was not a case of any 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' in any manner. The complaint has been filed by the complainant just to get undue benefit. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of case titled as "Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Purushottam Lal"
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the consumer for getting the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act has to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel further submits that the claim in the complaint was for withdrawal of the amount of repair as the vehicle was within the warranty period but since it was a case of accident and as such the warranty was barred. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Commission has wrongly held that the vehicle was jointly insured by all the OPs whereas the vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company i.e. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company. The appellant/OP No.2 is only the manufacturer and has no role in the insurance of the vehicle. The complainant has not impleaded the Insurance Company as party but has impleaded OP No.3 as party which is an Insurance Broking Company as per the licence issued by the IRDA and accordingly the complaint is also liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also the First Appeal No.726 of 2022 12 argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a well settled law that the warranty policy covers only the manufacturing defect and not accidental repair. The findings recorded by the District Commission are contrary to the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.
15. In First Appeal No.853 of 2022, initially Mr. Sukhandeep Singh Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP No.1-Jaycee Motors but he was not present at the time of final hearing of the appeal. However, he has filed Miscellaneous Application No.1689 of 2022 for placing on record the written arguments.
16. For the reasons stated in the application, M.A. No.1689 of 2022 is allowed and the said M.A. is disposed of accordingly.
17. I have carefully perused not only the impugned order but other documents available on the file including the grounds of appeal and written arguments. It has been mentioned in the written arguments as well as grounds of the appeal that the District Commission has failed to appreciate a material fact that the complainant had nowhere mentioned in the complaint the date and place of the accident which is material. It was also not mentioned in the complaint as how the vehicle was toed from the place of accident. It has been mentioned that the complainant was never assured by the appellant regarding the factum of insurance as well as the fact that the OPs are independent entities and the appellant has no role to indemnify the alleged loss covered under the Insurance Policy. The complainant himself has given approval for repair work on payment basis and said repair work was First Appeal No.726 of 2022 13 done under the warranty period and the Insurance Company had rejected the claim of the complainant. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. Further it has been mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the complainant is not consumer as per the Provisions of the Act as the vehicle was purchased in the name of G.S. Virdi Construction and complainant has nothing to do with the said vehicle as said vehicle was purchased for use of commercial purposes but all these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission. The following judgments have been cited in the grounds of appeal in support of the grounds of the appeal:
"Pharos Solutions Pvt. Limited Vs. Tata Motors Limited"
2014(3)C.P.C. (559) "Majestic Properties Pvt. Limited Vs. Arun Dhandhania"
2017(3)CLT-350 "Suresh Singla Vs. Jaycee Authomobiles Pvt. Ltd."
2018(4)CPJ-35 "General Motors India Vs. G.S. Fertilizers (P) Limited"
2013(2)CPJ-72 "Parampal Singh Vs. Universal Motors" 2018(4) CLT-63
18. Mr. P.S. Chahal Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant submits that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and the same has been passed by considering all the relevant facts and evidence available on the record and also the oral arguments raised by all the parties. A specific finding has been recorded on the basis of record and evidence available on the file that it was a case of 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs. The words were used in such a manner so that the attention of the public was attracted towards Maruti Insurance. First Appeal No.726 of 2022 14 Learned counsel also submits that it was a case of not only misrepresentation but misleading the consumer by misleading advertisement. The District Commission has given categoric findings that it was a case of not only 'unfair trade practice' but to give message by using the words that the Insurance Company was of the Maruti Suzuki. Learned counsel further submits that the words "Maruti Insurance" was written on the left side of the insurance document in large words and there was no address of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited. It was a clear cut case of misrepresentation and misleading to the general consumers or to give such impression that the Insurance Company was of Maruti Suzuki India Private Limited. It has been further argued by learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant that although the objection was raised that the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company was not impleaded as party but by considering the advertisement, policy documents and on having impression that Insurance Company was of Maruti Company, there was no reasons to implead party. It was the result of misrepresentation as well as misleading advertisement. All these factors have been taken into consideration by the District Commission and the order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of relevant facts and evidence available on the record.
19. Heard the arguments raised by representing counsel for the parties. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2/OP No.1 at the time of final arguments. I have also perused the documents First Appeal No.726 of 2022 15 available on the record as well as written submissions submitted by the parties.
20. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the said vehicle from OP No.1 and the same was got insured from the OPs. The fact of accident of vehicle is also not in dispute. The District Commission while allowing the complaint has relied upon the documents Ex.C-4 and C-5 as submitted by the complainant with the complaint and a finding has been recorded that the Insurance Certificate issued by OPs No.1 to 3 has clearly shown that on the top of the document there is a logo of Maruti with words "Maruti Insurance". Further it has been written that it is a Certificate of Insurance, Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, (1) Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj New Delhi. A complete address of OP No.3 was also incorporated. It has further been mentioned that at the end it has been written Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited but the same is in small words. As per document Ex.C-5 same words "Maruti Insurance" are written on the left side but with large words. However, there is no address of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited.
21. From the facts as mentioned above it has been held by the District Commission that it is a case of 'Misrepresentation and Misleading' the general consumers by preparing false document which is clear from the perusal of document itself. The words "Maruti Insurance" is reflected to show that the vehicle was insured with Maruti Insurance. Once it is proved that the Maruti Insurance is the insurer then the liability is of the Maruti Insurance as there is no First Appeal No.726 of 2022 16 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company with any specific address. Meaning thereby the Insurance Company and the Maruti Suzuki are one and the same thing.
22. On perusal of email dated 14.08.2019 sent by one Nitin Kataria of Maruti Workshop to the complainant, it is apparent that the communication was sent to the complainant by informing that the claim of the complainant had been rejected by the Insurance Company but the name of the Insurance Company had not been mentioned. Even it was not informed/intimated that the complainant could contact with the Insurance Company. There was no reason to believe otherwise that the Insurance Company and the Maruti Suzuki Private Limited were two independent entities. It is also relevant to mentioned here that no such letter of repudiating the claim of the accident was delivered to the complainant and there was no reason to implead the Universal Sompo General Insurance Company as party and under such circumstances when the factum of repudiation of claim was informed to the complainant by the official/officer of OP No.1 and that too through email. Even said official has not suggested the complainant to file any claim by approaching Universal Sompo General Insurance Company. It appears to be a case of connivance of all the OPs. In case Universal Sompo General Insurance Company was a separate identity then there was no necessity to mention the name of Broker Company on the policy document.
23. The District Commission has defined the 'misrepresentation' and 'unfair trade practice' in so many words by First Appeal No.726 of 2022 17 giving reference of a number of judgments and as such the order passed by the District Commission is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on the record and after considering the arguments/stand taken by the appellants/OPs before the District Commission.
24. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. First Appeal No.726 of 2022 being devoid of any merit is dismissed and the order passed by the District Commission is upheld.
25. The appellant/OP No.3 had deposited an amount Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. First Appeal No.796 of 2022
26. This appeal of the appellant-Maruti Suzuki India Limited is dismissed in the same terms of order passed in First Appeal No.726 of 2022.
27. The appellant/OP No.2 had deposited an amount Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry District Commission forthwith. Respondent First Appeal No.726 of 2022 18 No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. First Appeal No.853 of 2022
28. This appeal of the appellant-Jaycee Motors Nexa Gateway Jaycee is also dismissed in the same terms as order passed in First Appeal No.726 of 2022.
29. The appellant/OP No.1 had deposited an amount Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT January 06, 2023.
MM