IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 11.06.2014 Date of Hearing: 27.02.2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.-599/2014 IN THE MATTER OF UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

KANCHENJUNGA BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR, 18 BARAKHAMBHA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 …APPELLANT (Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth and Mr. Soumik Mazumdar, Advocates Mob.9811213768, 9555631589 Email:sethpankaj74@gmail.com)

VERSUS

1. SMT. VIJAY LAXMI KATOCH, R/O, C-6/6288, VASANT KUNJ, DELHI-110070 (Through: Mr. Shazeb, Advocate, Mob.8826415130 &

Email: shazebarman@gmail.com)

2. M/S SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

C-101, MAYAPURI INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110064

3. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

BUSINESS PARK, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI.

….RESPONDENTS CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. Pankay Seth, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Rishi Katoch, respondent in person (Mob.9810561681 & Email: katochrishi@yahoo.co.in)

PER : HON’BLE PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The complainant owns Tata Indigo LX car No. DL 3CAF 0502 and has been getting if regularly serviced from O.P- 1, the authorized Tata Motors service workshop. On 13.08.06 she handed over the car to O.P-1 for regular service and it was delivered back on 14.08.06 after charging her Rs.3352/-.

It is alleged by the complainant that immediately after service on 14.08.06 the car collapsed in the evening of 15.08.06 while it was being driven between Narela and Kanjhawla without any external damage, the car was towed back to the workshop of O.P-1 and next day being Janamashtami, the job card was prepared on 17.08.06. O.P-1 refused to take the liability for the damage and the complainant suspected that the radiator of her car, during service, had been replaced by the employees of O.P-1 with some damaged radiator which caused the collapse of the engine.

It is further alleged by the complainant that O.P-1 dismantled the vehicle without her permission to investigate the reason for the defect and since the vehicle was under extended warranty the complainant approached O.P-2 who however refused to accept the claim for damage, to the vehicle due to external accident, hence, not covered under the warranty.

The complainant filed the claim with O.P-3 the insurance company but they rejected the same saying that there was no external accidental damage. The complainant then got repaired the vehicle from O.P-1 who charged her Rs.60,881/-. Aggrieved, the complainant then filed this complaint U/s 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency-in-service on the part of all the three O.Ps who refused her claim and prayed for refund of the amount charged by O.P-1 with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.3,352/- charged by O.P-1 for servicing the vehicle on 14.08.06 also with interest @ 12% p.a. along with Rs.40,000/- as compensation @ Rs.500/- per day for 80 days from 13.08.06 to 31.10.06 when the car remained unserviceable and Rs.5,000/- as cost of Litigation.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated

20.03.2014, whereby it held as follows:

“From a careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties it is abundantly clear that the facts as alleged by the complainant in her complaint are admitted in entirety. There is no denial on the part of either of the parties that O.P-1 is the authorized servicing workshop and they serviced the vehicle regularly and did so on 13.08.06 and returned the vehicle after service, charging Rs.3,352/- from the complainant. O.P-2 had admittedly issued extended warranty valid from 23.04.04 to 22.04.07 (Ex-B). O.P-3 is also an insurance company who had issued the insurance policy/ certificate valid from 19.04.06 to

18.04.07.

The damage to the car in question has been caused between 14.08.06 to 17.08.06 when the car was again taken