ASHOK KUMAR Vs. FRONTIER AUTOWORLD PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.08.2016 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 615 of 2014.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner had purchased a car from respondent no. 3/ opposite party No.3, i.e., World Class Automobiles insured by respondent/ OP no. 2, i.e., HDGC ERGO General Insurance. Respondent nos.1, 3 and 4/ O.P. Nos.1, 3 and 4 were deleted from the memorandum of parties in the appeal as per the statement of counsel for the petitioner/ appellant. It was alleged that on 19.05.2011 the bottom of the car hit a speed breaker and pit and as a result the engine oil leaked. The petitioner gave information to World Class Automobiles Private Limited and was advised to take vehicle to Respondent no. 1/ O.P.No.1, i.e., Frontier Autoworld Pvt. Ltd., an authorized agent of respondent no. 4/ O.P.No.4, i.e., Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. After inspection he was informed that the cost of repair would be approximately Rs.20,000/-. On 23.05.2011 it was further informed that the self-starter would have to be replaced and the cost would be around Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- approximately. The petitioner asked respondent no. 4/ O.P.No.4 to bear the expenses of the same because the car was within the warranty. On 03.06.2011, the respondent no. 1/ O.P.No.1 informed that self-starter was not available and could be replaced only as and when it was received from Germany. In the meantime Rs.1000/- would be reimbursed per day. After a few days when he went to take delivery of vehicle it was told by officials of respondent no. 1/ O.P.No.1 that the engine had to be opened and it would cost Rs.1.00 lakh. The petitioner contacted respondent no. 2/ O.P.No.2 i.e. insurance company to pay the amount, but, it refused to reimburse the amount because the vehicle was within the warranty period. Due to non-availability of the vehicle, he was forced to hire a taxi @ Rs.1000/- per day from 20.05.2011. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the same along with Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs.50,000/- for loss of his business. Petitioner has prayed that they be also directed to replace the vehicle if it was beyond repairs.

(3.) The respondent no. 1/O.P.No.1 filed their reply controverting his averments and alleged that the car had suffered damaged due to its mis-handling by the petitioner/complainant. It was brought to the workshop on 21.05.2011 with the problem of chamber damage. It was not liable to pay any amount qua loss of business, hiring taxi, etc. because there was no fault on its part. Hence, it was not responsible to replace the starter etc.