JAIDEV SHARMA Vs. WHEEL WORLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of both the above titled appeals as these are cross appeals filed against the Order dated 25th August, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission. Haryana at Chandigarh. Shri Jaidev Sharma Appellant in F.A. No.185/92 and Respondent in F.A. No. 375/93 had filed a complaint before the State Commission Haryana arraying M/s. Wheel World, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt, Wheels World. P.B. No. 2224, Bangalore and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Amballa Cantt., as Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. The Complainant had purchased one Montana (Diesel) Car manufactured by Sipani Automobiles Ltd., for Rs. 1,28,000/- From Opposite Party No. 1 who is the Dealer in that car on 6.7.1990. The car was insured with Opposite Party No. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 17th September, 1990 the car suddenly stopped on the road and did not start. It was taken in a truck from Rohtak to the premises of Opposite Party No. 1 at Amballa Cantt. for necessary repairs on the same day. However, for well-nigh three months the said car could not be repaired despite repeated entreaties of the Complainant. Unfortunately, fire broke out in the show-room of Opposite Party No. 1 on 11th December, 1990 and the vehicle was virtually completely burnt down. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 1 asked the Complainant to complete the formalities regarding the insurance claim and despite his earnest efforts to have the matter finalised the same could not be done for about one year. Thereafter, on 29th January,1992 the Complainant received a letter from the Insurance Company-Opposite Party No. 3 asking for further documents which were supplied. However, because of the back of cooperation by the Oposite Party No. 1 no redress was made available to the Complainant. After waiting for well-nighone year and six months, from the date of the delivery of the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission for relief. He claimed Rs. 1,28,000/- as the costs of the car plus loss of accessories, expenses and compensation for mental harassment etc. The total claim was made to the tune of Rs. 1,87,000/-.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 some preliminary objections were raised but these were not seriously pressed before the State Commission. On merits the sale of the car to the Complainant was admitted and also the fact that on 17th September, 1990, the vehicle was left with the Opposite Party No. 1 for repairs. The Complainant was informed about the serious defects in the engine and assurances were held out to do the needful and delay was sought to be explained on the ground of short supply of vehicle's spare parts. The liability was sought to be shifted on the shoulder of the Insurer. The liability was attempted to be evaded on the ground that the vehicle was delivered to Opposite Party No. 1 after the expiry of period of warranty. It was admitted that the fire broke out in the pemises of the Opposite Party No. 1. It was pleaded that because of the defective engine, it was removed from the body, the same escaped the damage while the rest of the car was burnt down. It was the plea that the price of the said engine assembly is Rs. 37.000/- and were ready and willing to delivery the same over to the Complainant. On these grounds responsibility was evaded by the Opposite Party No. 1 while virtually making no valid averment on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. In essence, the burden was sought to be passed on to Opposite Party No. 3 i.e. the Insurer.

(3.) IN the replication filed by the Complainant he stoutly reiterated his earlier stand. It was categorically asserted that the vehicle did not cross 8000 kms., when it was delivered to Opposite Party No. 1 and was otherwise, within the warranty period. It was also highlighted that the car could not be repaired for more than three months and was obviously beyond rectification.