Punjab

StateCommission

A/502/2015

Force Motors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.Jagdeva

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.502 of 2015

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.05.2015

                                                          Order Reserved on : 07.02.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:   08.02.2017

 

Force Motors Ltd., Mumbai Pune Road, Pune 35 through its Director

 

                                                              Appellant/Opposite party  no.2   

                   Versus

 

1.      Ashok Kumar son of late Sh. Kishori Lal, Pargati Cottage, Sikh  Lines behind DAV College Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                          Respondent no.1/Complainant

 

2.      Aditya Vehicles Pvt. Ltd 2581/I0/R.K Road Industrial Area-A,   Ludhiana through its Director.

 

                                                 Respondent no.2/Opposite party no.1

 

First Appeal against order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

         

Present:-

          For appellant                         : Sh.N.S Jagdeva, Advocate

          For respondent no.1             : Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate

          For respondents no.2           : Sh.H.S Bedi, Advocate

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant has directed this appeal against order dated 27.02.2015 of District Forum Ludhiana directing the appellant to carry out necessary repairs in the vehicle, as detailed in the order and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation to respondent no.1 of this appeal. Respondent no.1 of this appeal is the complainant in the original complaint before District Forum, Ludhiana and respondent no.2 of this appeal is OP no.1 therein and appellant of this appeal is OP no.2 in it and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he purchased vehicle Force (6+D) BS (iv) bearing engine no.D62001120, Chassis no. MCIJ4ADA2CP001417 from OP no.2 through its authorized dealer/OP no.1, vide retail invoice dated 10.05.2012  for Rs.11,30,942/-. The vehicle started giving troubles soon after its purchase. It developed gear shifting problem, which fact was brought to the notice of OP no.2. The AC of the vehicle was also not giving proper cooling as per standard manufacturing specifications. The vehicle was taken to the work station of OP no.1, but the defects therein were not rectified. The vehicle further developed other defects, as break problem, rear propeller short noise, air cutting noise, real wheel noise, excess noise of engine in side cabin and defect in meter. The vehicle was taken to workshop of OP no.1 many times, but to no effect. OP no.1 made temporary arrangement to set right the break problem of vehicle, but still the fault persisted.  The deficiency in service was alleged on the part of OPs for delivery of this type of vehicle to the complainant, despite receipt of sale price therefor. The complainant filed complaint directing OPs to replace the defective vehicle with new one of the same type and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac or in the alternative to return the price of the vehicle of Rs.11,30,942/- with interest 18% from 10.05.2012 from the date of purchase.

3.      Upon notice, OP no.1 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objection that it is frivolous and vexatious and merits dismissal under Section 26 of the CP Act. OP no.1 is a mere dealer of OP no.1, which is manufacturer of this vehicle. The vehicle had already run 79188 Km after its purchase uptil 10.05.2012. The complainant raised 20-25 complaints and every time, it was found to be without any substance. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle by giving satisfaction note. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP no.1 on 08.03.2014 and the alleged defects were set right in it. OP no.1 arranged technical expert of OP no.2 at own cost for inspection  of the vehicle, but no defect was found therein. There is no expert report with regard to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Even on merits, it was averred that vehicle was delivered in satisfactory and roadworthy condition to complainant.  The gear shift, AC break, noise problem were found to be fake one. OP no.1 replaced the many spare parts of the vehicle just to satisfaction of the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP no.1 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.          

4.      OP no.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred that complainant purchased the vehicle from OP no.1 manufactured by OP no.2 on 10.05.2012. OP no.2 undergoes stringent quality control check and models of the vehicles are approved by independent testing institutes approved by the Central Government. The vehicle manufactured by OP did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The official of OP no.1 called technician of OPno.2 from Delhi and no fault was found in the vehicle. It was further averred in preliminary objections that vehicle of the complainant was used extensively, which fact is plain from job card record. The vehicle had covered 67000 Kms till July 2014, which indicated that it was used regularly. The obligation of answering OP under warranty would be limited to repair or replacing free of charge such parts, which in their opinion are defective. This was applicable when the vehicle was brought to the dealer's workshop within a warranty period, subject to satisfaction  of the terms and conditions thereof.  No such loss or injury has been suffered by the complainant due to any act of OP no.2. The complaint is alleged to be without cause of action. On merits, any manufacturing defect in the vehicle was vehemently denied by OP no.2. It was further pleaded that general wear and tear was caused due to negligent driving of the complainant.  This fact was denied that cause of action would accrue to complainant on each and every date, when vehicle was taken to OP no.1 for setting right of the alleged defects. OP no.2 prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A  along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-43.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Surinder Kumar authorized signatory of M/s Aditya Vehicle Private Limited Ex.R-A, affidavit of Amit Puri Ex.RA-2 along with copies of documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/4.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 27.02.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 27.02.2015, opposite party no.2 now appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

7.      The counsel for appellant assailed the validity of the order passed by District Forum in this appeal. It was submitted that the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant as and when brought to the workshop of OP no.1 and complainant signed various satisfaction notes regarding satisfactory services of the vehicle. The OPs set right the vehicle free of cost within warranty period as and when brought. Any fault in the vehicle was seriously controverted by counsel for appellant in this case. The submission of appellant is that vehicle ran distance up to 80000 Km and complainant drove it negligently and he was himself to blame therefor. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1 being complainant supported the order passed by the District Forum in this case.

8.      From evaluation of evidence on the record, we find that purchase of vehicle by complainant from OP no.1/authorized dealer manufactured by OP no.2 is not a disputed fact in this case. Ex.C-1 is registration certificate of the vehicle. The retail invoice with regard to fact of purchase against price dated 10.05.2012 is Ex.C-2. The complainant relied upon complaint dated 06.04.2013 Ex.C-3 pointing out the defects in the vehicle. Ex.C-4 is Legal notice was sent to the complainant to OPs in this regard, which is duly supported by the copies of postal receipt Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. Ex.C-7 is reply to legal notice dated 16.04.2013 sent by counsel for OPs. Reply to legal notice by OP no.2  now appellant  is Ex.C-8 on the record. Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-26 are the job cards with regard to carrying out the necessary repairs in the vehicle on different dates. The job cards are the documents of OP no.1, which lend corroboration to the version of the complainant that vehicle gave troubles. We are further fortified in this view by job cards Ex.C-27 to Ex.C-31 on the record. Remaining documents placed on record have also been duly evaluated by us on the side of the complainant. OPs relied upon affidavit of Surinder Kumar authorized signatory of M/s Aditya Vehicle Private Limited Ex.R-A, who denied any manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Ex.R-1/1 is warranty condition. Ex.R-2/2 is service record of the vehicle. Ex.R/3 is satisfaction note dated 02.08.2012.

9.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record, we find that District Forum rightly appreciated the dispute in this case. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 10.05.2012, which fact is not dispute in this case. The warranty terms and conditions Ex.R-2/1 are that warranty coverage is for six months or 50000 Kms for few selected parts. Different parts are covered differently and time is prescribed therefor in the warranty. Faults started appeared in the vehicle within currency of the warranty period and they were not set right by OPs, as rightly observed by the District Forum. Had they been removed, there would have been no problem thereafter necessitating the complainant to take the vehicle to service station of OP no.1 time and again. Since the faults appeared in the vehicle within warranty period and they were not set right and hence the obligation of OPs to remove the defects had not been discharged in this case. CP Act is consumer oriented designed piece of legislation to protect the innocent consumers against their undue exploitation by big business houses. We are of this conclusion that District Forum rightly passed regarding carrying out necessary repair in the vehicle in the order because no manufacturing defect in the vehicle has been proved by any expert evidence of the complainant. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum in this case.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by affirming the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 27.02.2015 under challenge in this appeal.

11.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.3500/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal and further deposited Rs.3500/- in compliance of the order of this Commission, vide receipt dated 21.12.2015. Both these amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant of this appeal by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

12     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

                                                                              (J.S GILL)

                                                                               MEMBER

 

                                                                                                         

February 8,  2017                                                                

(ravi)