A vehicle dealer is liable for deficiency in service if they permit a vehicle to be driven away from the showroom without obtaining a mandatory valid temporary registration certificate, as required under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby exposing the consumer to safety and legal risks.

ORDER

Appeal against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.611/2021.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2024, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), whereby consumer complaint (CC/611/2021) filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 was partly allowed as under;

“In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.3 to 7 & 10 are directed as under :-

i. To refund amount of Rs.2,45,987/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.

ii. to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

iii. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OP No.3 to 7 & 10 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP No.1,2,8 & 9, therefore, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that he had purchased a Mercedes Benz car for a sum of Rs.43,32,900/- from Opposite Party No.3/Appellant No.1 (herein) on 30.04.2021 (Annexure C-2). The vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 & 2/respondents No.2 & 3 (herein) and the said policy was valid from 29.04.2021 to 28.04.2024. The vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2021 at Chandigarh to Panchkula Road and it was extensively damaged. Since no loss of life or limb took place, as such, the matter was not reported to the police. The complainant looked at the damage, immediately called Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. for reporting about the incident (Annexure C-7 colly). Opposite Party No.7/appellant no.5 confirmed that a claim was lodged with the insurance company i.e., Opposite Party No.1 & 2 for release of the claim. Opposite Party No..3 to 6 & 7 assured him that the car will be repaired within 7-8 days and also the claim will also be released till then. The complainant was regularly following up, but the Opposite Parties on one pretext or the other kept on delaying the genuine claim of the complainant and finally repudiated the claim on 7.7.2021 (Annexure C-13). Opposite Parties initially repudiated the cashless facility without any intimation which was promised to the complainant while purchasing the insurance policy. The vehicle was then got repaired by the complainant out of his own pocket and paid an amount of Rs.2,45,987/-. The Opposite Parties refused to reimburse the claimed amount and closed the claim on frivolous grounds (Annexure C-16). On 20.08.2021, Kotak General Insurance Co., cancelled the policy without giving any prior notice which was mandatory under Clause ‘5a’ of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. When all efforts made by the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance could not get any tangible result, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, a consumer complaint was fi