Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/71

Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Akshara automotives private limited - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROOPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.  71 of 2022

Date of Institution:          : 16.05.2022

Date of Decision            :  24.03.2023

 

Harjit Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Jaswant Singh, resident of Village Ramgarh alias Dekwala, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Akshara Automotives Private Limited, Opposite Jasdev Singh, Sandhu College, Village Multanpur, Rajpura Road, Patiala Punjab 140701.

2.       Akshara Automotives Private Limited Authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra  at Sirsa Nangal, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar through proprietor/Manager 140114.

           

                                                                         …..Opposite parties

 

(Complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For complainant                       :         Sh.Satwant Singh, Adv.

For OPs                                   :         Sh.Abhishek Joshi, Advocate

                            

Per : KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.        Brief facts of the case are that the complainant having truck bearing registration no. PB-12-t-8318 Model 2014 of Mahindra Company. The fault occurred in the truck  and complainant approached OP no.2  branch of OP no.1. OP no.2 checked the vehicle in question  and told him that there is a fault in the engine of the above said vehicle and advised him that he should have to repair the same.  On 09.02.2022 , OP no.2 received the vehicle of the complainant  and assured him that they have full guarantee of engine for next one year.  At that time complainant was under influence of OP no.2 as  he purchased the vehicle  from OP no.2  and he got regular service of his vehicle form OP no.2.  On 12.02.2022, OP no.2 has given above said vehicle to complainant after repair the engine and OP no.2 given guarantee of repair next one year only.  OP no.2 has received the amount of Rs.54,006/-  from the complainant. The complainant has paid the amount to OP no.2 through online mode.  After receiving the vehicle, the same from GM Plywood  Factory Kurali through SJS Transport  Company Mianpur, Rupnagar on 23.02.2022 for Rajkot but vehicle in question  had breakdown on the way at Mangalwara Rajasthan on 24.02.2022.  Thereafter, he informed OPs but they have not bothered about the same and then complainant contacted Mahindra & Mahindra  Company then company send auto mechanic  at the spot and he told him that there is a big fault in the engine.  He requested OPs many times to rectify the fault of the vehicle of the complainant but OPs failed to do so.  After repeated requests, OPs gave assurance to complainant to get rectify the fault and installed the engine and further gave assurance to pay whole amount to the complainant which was incurred on the rectification.  The complainant paid Rs.12,000/- as labour charges of installing the engine  to Mahindra & Mahindra. The complainant purchased the old engine for Rs.1,25,000/- so total Rs.1,37,000/- which is due to negligence of OPs.  He also served a legal notice upon OPs on 25.02.2022 but of no use.  Due to act and conduct of OPs, he has filed the instant complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to reverse the amount of Rs.1,91,006/- , Rs.1,37,000/- and Rs.54,006/-  which was occurred on the repair of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receiving till its realization, to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of physical mental pain, Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation and other reliefs.

2.        Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that  the complainant and his driver took the delivery of the truck after getting the job done because there was no warranty or guarantee of any of the parts. So vehicle was taken from Workshop  of OP no.1  after signing the satisfaction note  of job on 12.02.2022  but this fact has not been disclosed  by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. The vehicle was covered  a huge amount of Km i.e. 641827 showing the sale date as 27.11.2014 hence it be dismissed.  The complainant along with his driver visited on 09.02.2022  for some engine job to which it was attended at kilometer at 704338 for head leakage, gear oil and other engine jobs  and some of the parts were brought by the complainant at his own  and same were got fitted and issued invoice no. 894 dated 12.02.2022  for Rs.54,006/-  and took the delivery from the workshop to his entire satisfaction as already explained and complainant signed the job card  in which specifically signed by him with remarks that :-“ I have agreed with the head related job work from outside and there was no responsibility of the OP for any job and took the delivery after making payment.”  But these facts were not disclosed  by the complainant for reasons best known to him.  The complainant has not filed any documentary evidence  nor received by the OP.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by  OPs even on merits and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.        The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravibool Chandani Manger as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.   

4.        We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully

5.        The complainant alleged that he is having a truck bearing registration no. PB-12-T-8318 Model 2014 of Mahindra Company.  On 09.02.2022, the OP no.2 received the vehicle  of the complainant and assured him that they have full guarantee of engine for next year. The complainant alleged that under the influence of OPs, he has purchased the vehicle in question.  On 12.02.2022, OP no.2 has given the said vehicle to him after repair of the engine and OP no.2 has given the guarantee of the engine repaired by him for next one year only.  OP no.2 has received the amount of Rs.54,006/-  from the complainant and issued invoice/bill of the same to him.  The complainant alleged that but problem in the engine persisted and he requested OPs from time to time to rectify the same but OPs failed to do so. Due to act and conduct of OPs, the complainant purchased old engine  for amount of Rs.1,25,000/-  and spent Rs.12,000/- as labour charges of installing of the engine in the vehicle in question.

6.        On the other hand, OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant and pleaded that vehicle was taken from workshop of OP no.1 after signing the satisfaction note of the jobs done on 12.02.2022  but this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant. The complainant signed the job card for his satisfaction. As such, OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part.

7.        The main point for controversy involved in the instant complaint is whether the deficiency in service on the part of Ops attributed or not? This fact is admitted that the problem in the engine of the vehicle occurred from time to time and OPs repaired the same as and when required. From perusal of job card dated 09.02.2022, it seems that OPs repaired the part of the engine and complainant gave satisfaction in this job card  : I have agree with the Head related job work outside check work done.”  In repair order dated 09.02.2022,  OPs checked the engine and gave observations that check leakage for head assembly, check engine oil level, gear old level check, gear oil level check and check oil axle level and labour cost as Rs.35,00/- for the said work.  The warranty of the vehicle in question started from 27.11.2014. The complainant alleged that on 09.02.2022 OP no.2 received his vehicle  and assured him that they have full guarantee of the vehicle is given.  We have perused the copy of job card dated 09.02.2022, in which date of sale as mentioned as 27.11.2014, it seems that the OPs repaired the vehicle in question after long span of time from the date of purchase.  The complainant purchased old engine from Harjit Singh Scrap Store for payment of Rs.1,25,000/- , this fact is clear from receipt dated 26.02.2022 Ex.C-6 on the record. The engine of the vehicle in question also repaired from Daksh Auto Pvt. Ltd vide Ex.C-7 on the record. Further, engine of the vehicle got repaired from Daksh Auto Pvt. Ltd vide bill dated 02.03.2022   on the record.

8.        From perusal of entire record on the file, it has transpired that the engine of the vehicle in question got repaired from time to time from OPs and other Automobiles and the complainant has also purchased old engine from outside on the assurance of the OPs but problem in the engine persisted. If problem occurred in the engine of the vehicle time and again then it was bounden duty of the OPs/Akshara Automobile Pvt. Ltd to remove the defects of the vehicle as and when required. The case law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Tata Motors Ltd. versus Bishamber Nath Sikka and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 306 is applicable in the present case, wherein it has been held that it is very clear that vehicle did suffer from defects, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of the vehicle is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop a number of times, unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. It becomes duty of the manufacturer as well as dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a road-worthy condition free from all defects. Similarly, the case law relied upon by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. versus Dr. Koneru Satya Kishre and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 564-65 that  a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from defect, it there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality , quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force. It would be seen from above that whether the defect in the vehicle qualified to be called a ‘manufacturing defect’ or not, it was duty of the OPs to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition.       Both above cited judgments are applicable in this case. In the above citations Hon’ble National Commission upheld the case of the State Commission.

9.        In view of our above discussion and as per above citation of Apex Court, the present complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition. The complainant is directed to deliver the vehicle in question to OPs within 15 days from today and OPs are directed to remove the defect in the vehicle and delivered the same to complainant within further 15 days from receipt of above said vehicle in question.

10.      The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.           This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.       File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

Dated         :24.03.2023                                      (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                               President

 

 

                     ( Rakesh Kumar Gupta)                           

                                                                                   Member