PRIYA AJIT SINGH Vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. 450/2013 dated 18.09.2019.

(2.) There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present Appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, IA/35/2020, delay is condoned.

(3.) In the Complaint Case, it was stated that the Appellant/Complainant had purchased a Mahindra XUV 500 bearing registration No. DL 12CA 2418 from Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1. On 06.01.2013, while Appellant's son Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa was travelling with driver Jaichand to Agra, at about 8:30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident. On the Yamuna Expressway, a truck bearing registration No. DL 1GC 0210 crashed into the rear side of the vehicle. It was alleged that despite such magnitude of accident, none of the eight airbags deployed in the vehicle. The exposure of risk to all passengers/driver of the vehicle was enormous as the air bags did not deploy. The Appellant's son reported the aforesaid accident to the nearest Police at Sadabad, janpad Mahamaya Nagar, UP. The driver of the truck Mr. Budh Prakash was apprehended by the local police. The driver gave a written statement to the police, wherein he admitted his fault in causing the accident to the vehicle from the rear side. Appellant's son also informed the Mahindra emergency services on phone about the accident, who thereupon sent a crane on 07.01.2013 to pick the damaged vehicle and deliver it to Bhasin Motors, A-13, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. The vehicle had an insurance bearing cover note No. PO9871583 dated 08.05.2012 issued by ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance. The authorized representative of Respondent No.4 Mr. Bhupendra Rawat, visited the Appellant's house to investigate the accident case/claim. He took various documents from the Appellant to process the claim. However, the Appellant received no response from the Respondents, despite making various phone calls. The Appellant sent a letter dated 19.03.2013 to Respondent No.2 seeking repair of the vehicle and also complaining the unprofessional and callous attitude of Respondent No.3 owing to the delay in delivery of the vehicle. However, the Appellant did not receive any response from the Respondents. The Appellant again sent an email dated 30.03.2013 to Respondent No. 2 and 3 expressing displeasure and inconvenience. The Appellant sent another email dated 27.06.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3 again expressing anguish and frustration, as the vehicle had not been repaired for over 61/2 months. Respondent No.3, vide email dated 27.06.2013, apologized for the long delay in repairing the vehicle and promised to deliver the vehicle by 03.07.2013. Respondent No.3 then wrote an email dated 02.07.2013 to Appellant seeking documents for processing the claim of the Appellant. The Appellant provided the required documents, vide email dated 02.07.2013. Respondent No.3 sent an email dated 06.07.2013 to the Appellant that the vehicle had been repaired and clearance from Respondent No.4 was awaited to deliver the vehicle. The Appellant visited the workshop of Respondent No.3 on 12.07.2013 to take delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was in a terrible condition for delivery. There were scratches all over the vehicle and none of the fittings had been done properly. Immediately, the Appellant sent an email dated 12.07.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3 mentioning all the defects that were visible on usual inspection of the vehicle. The Appellant sent another email dated 21.07.2013 to Respondent No.2 and 3 as an executive of Respondent No.3 had informed that gear box of the vehicle was defective and required further repairs. Respondent No.3 responded, vide email dated 21.07.2013, indicating that they had provided best possible service and delay was not caused owing to their deficient service and suggested that delay was in getting approval of Respondent No.4. Since 06.01.2013, the Complainant has been without the vehicle. Respondent No.2 and 3 were incapable of repairing the vehicle and restoring it to its original condition and therefore, were liable to replace the vehicle. The Appellant had been spending money on taxis ever since the accident and Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 never extended the courtesy to offer an alternative mode of transport. The Appellant travelled 50 kilometers every day for work and other purposes. The Appellant had been without a vehicle since 06.01.2013 i.e. almost 212 days. Thus, the Complaint was filed.