BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.404 of 2015
Date of Instt. 16.09.2015
Date of Decision: 08.11.2017
Mr. Charanjit Singh aged 42 years son of S. Sohan Singh resident of House No.171, Pandori Rukman, Nai Abadi, Near Railway Station, Nasrala Hoshiarpur (Mobile No.78376 303563)
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Ashok Leyland Light Vehicle Division Head Office, 3rd Floor, Block I, Temple Stops # 184-187 Anna Salai, Littel Mount, chennai-600015 at present Ashok Leyland Limited, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032
2. Ashok Leyland Regional Office (North) Leyland House, 4th Floor, Plot No.76, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana)
3. M/s Grover Motors Pvt. Ltd. Opp., Dhandhari Kalan, Railway Station G.T. Road, Ludhiana-141 016.
4. M/s Globe Auto Parts (Regd.) Authorized dealer-Ashok Leyland Heavy Vehicles, “Nand Farms” Paragpur, Opp: Best Price, GT Road, Jalandhar.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Mrs. Surjan Sandhu, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Manuj Aggarwal, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 4.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is an owner of Four Wheeler Tempo and he himself driving the same and it is the only source of income of the complainant to earn livelihood for his family. The OP No.1 and 2 are the manufacturers and suppliers of heavy and light vehicles and the OP No.3 and 4 are the authorized dealer of OP No.1 and 2.
2. That the complainant has purchased a Light Vehicle 'Dost Bharosa Model' Model LX Creen bearing registration No.PB07-AL-3665 on 10.08.2013, vide invoice No.GM/vehicle/46, amounting to Rs.5,09,087/- and the same was registered in the name of the complainant by the authorities. Copy of the bill is attached herewith. The said vehicle in question, purchased by the complainant from OP No.3, which is having a major defect i.e. there is problem of smoke and hunting in the engine, from its purchase and those defects still persists in the said vehicle usually and this defect is a manufacture defect and cannot be removed. The said vehicle has already been given for repair in order to remove the defects from the OP No.4 many times since the day of its purchase but the defects still persists. Due to the defective model, the complainant had to suffer a lot and at present the said vehicle is parked with OP No.4 for its repair. Whenever the complainant submitted the vehicle in the service station, the same remained there for 14-15 days due to which the complainant had to suffer loss in his earnings. The complainant has paid many visits to OP No.4, but OP No.4 have not issued any job card for the said vehicle. The complainant is being harassed by the OP No.4 to such extent which becomes unbearable. The warranty period of the said vehicle was also extended by OPs and the warranty period still continues. The vehicle in question is liable to be replaced with Brand New Vehicle.
3. That on 25.08.2015, the complainant visited at service station of OP No.4 and asked about the delivery of the vehicle but OP No.4 got annoyed and started quarreling with the complainant and also misbehaved with the complainant. From 25.08.2015, the complainant is being called by the OP No.4 several times and even on 12.09.2015, but when the complainant enquired about his vehicle from them, they failed to give satisfactory reply for non repair of the vehicle. The above said illegal and unlawful acts of the OPs has caused a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment and monetary loss due to non plying of the said vehicle, to the complainant and OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant estimated the damages due to the loss to the tune of Rs.5,09,087/- besides he is also entitled for the loss of earnings of delay, which is approximately 4000/- per day and even legal notice dated 26.08.2015 was also served upon the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.5,09,087/- the bill amount of the vehicle purchased alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the purchase till actual payment of the claim and to replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new brand vehicle as the defect is manufacturing of the vehicle and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, in order to cause loss to the earning of the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for harassment, mental agony, inconvenience, suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and OPs be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs filed joint reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint instituted by the complainant is misconceived and bereft of any cause of action. No cause of action arose against the OPs and further averred that all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint are figment of imagination by the complainant. The nature of the submissions made by the complainant itself shows that the complainant has no case against the OPs and complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs is false and frivolous and only to harass the OPs and further alleged that the vehicle in question was purchased at Ludhiana from the OP No.3 and the complainant is residing at Hoshiarpur. The present complaint is not maintainable and tenable before this Forum for want of territorial jurisdiction also. Even otherwise, the alleged vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and same is used by the complainant for commercial purpose, as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and further averred that the complainant has failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to support the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle allegedly purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defects as alleged. The present complaint is to abuse the process of law and the complainant is trying to achieve unlawful gains by filing the present complaint against the OPs. However, it is necessary to mention that the vehicle of the complainant was run approximately 1,04,302 KM as on 24.08.2015. As per the warranty terms and conditions of the OP No.1 and 2, the said warranty for one year or upto 50000 KM, which ever is earlier. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.08.2013, meaning thereby the warranty of the vehicle in question was come to an end on 09.08.2014 in all cases. However, no documents produced by the complainant before the Forum in support of his alleged version that the said vehicle has any alleged defect. Even the detail of alleged manufacturing defect into the vehicle has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint and further alleged that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but it is categorically denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and further submitted that the vehicle in question is mishandled and misused. The complainant is in habit to use the vehicle with carrying over load material and if any problem occurred in the vehicle, the same were due to poor maintenance and bad driving on the part of the complainant. No such alleged problem was ever informed to the OPs by the complainant and the alleged problems are after thought and stated with the intention to get the illegal claim. It is further submitted that the complainant in order to harass the OPs intentionally left the vehicle on 20.10.2015 and inspite of reminder and request to the complainant, he intentionally did not take the vehicle and then OP No.3 through mail and SMS sent to the complainant to lift his vehicle and further submitted that it is matter of record about the extension of warranty but the same is under terms and conditions and liability of TVS Automobiles Solution Limited. The vehicle when took by the complainant before the OP No.4 on 24.08.2015, then it had number of defects. Even the time belt of the vehicle was also required to be changed, which was not got changed by the complainant in time. It was informed to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle that the belt is having a life upto 1,00,000 KM and it is required to be changed before reaching the 1,00,000 KM, but the complainant has not got changed the time belt even after 1,60,000 KM, which shows negligence on the part of the complainant and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-34 and then closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. After considering the case of the complainant as well as version of the OPs, it reveals that the purchase of the vehicle i.e. 'Dost Bharosa Model' having registration No.PB-07-AL-3665 on 10.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.5,09,087/- from OP No.3 is not denied by the OPs rather this fact is also established by the complainant by placing on the file copy of invoice Ex.C1 and further, we like to make it clear that warranty of the said vehicle was given initial for one year and thereafter, extended warranty was given by the OP, by issuing extended warranty certificate dated 07.03.2014 upto 08.08.2016, photostat copy of the said extended certificate is Ex.C2 and as per version of the complainant, the problem occurred to the vehicle in the month of August, 2015. So, it means the vehicle was well within warranty on the day of alleged problem occurred in the vehicle.
9. Before imparting with the main relief of the complainant, we like to meet out the objections raised by the learned counsel for the OP that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction as the vehicle in question has been purchased from Ludhiana. The said submission of learned counsel for the OP is not tenable because the workshop of the manufacturing firm is also situated at Jalandhar and vehicle was got repaired from OP No.4/workshop at Jalandhar and therefore, in our opinion District Forum, Jalandhar is having a territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Similarly, the counsel for the OP further alleged that the complainant used the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, moreover, the vehicle in question is meant for carrying goods and as such, it is clear that the vehicle is for the purpose of commercial use. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is for carrying a goods but the complainant in para No.2 of the complaint has categorically mentioned that he himself was driving the vehicle in question and it is the only source of income of the complainant to earn livelihood for his family. So, the case of the complainant falls under the exception as described in the Act and therefore, the argument as well as version put forth by the learned counsel for the OP is having no force in the eyes of Law.
10. Coming to the main relief of the complainant i.e. the vehicle having a manufacturing defect and due to that reason, the complainant is entitled either to refund the price of the vehicle alongwith interest or in alternative the vehicle may be replaced with a new brand vehicle and also entitled for other relief as alleged in the complaint. In order to establish that there is any manufacturing defect, the complainant has brought on the file vehicle history cards, which are Ex.C5 to Ex.C11 and further, also produced on the file some job cards Ex.C12 and Ex.C13. The complainant has not brought on the file all job cards as well as also failed to bring on the file complete vehicle history card rather the same is brought on the file by the OP, which are Ex.OP-14 to Ex.OP-29 and job cards Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-13, if we go through the job cards i.e. one by one, then can say without any hesitation that there is no defect mentioned in the engine of the vehicle rather on each occasion, whenever vehicle was brought to the workshop, which was due to the minor defect, which was repaired by the OP No.4 and similarly, if we go through the vehicle history card and according to that the vehicle was purchased on 10.08.2013 and first free service was got by the complainant at 3200 KM on 29.08.2013, then second service, when vehicle was run 3635 KM on 12.09.2013 and similarly, time to time the vehicle was brought by the complainant for service at the workshop of OP No.4 and last disputed date is 24.08.2015, when the complainant alleged that he brought the vehicle due to smoke and hunting in the engine but as per job card dated 24.08.2015, the vehicle was run 1,04,302 KM on 24.08.2015 and as per vehicle history card, the piston ring set of the vehicle was fitted and timing belt was also fitted and oil filter was changed, except above, some other parts of the vehicle was repaired and changed, obviously, after running a more than 1,00,000 KM, the vehicle required these type of repair and timing belt was changed due to the fault of the complainant as reported in the job card Ex.C16, wherein in the column of observations, it is mentioned that “it is found grease on timing belt and due to that reason, belt slipped from original position”. It is clearly mentioned in the job sheet Ex.C16 that the complainant placed a grease on the time belt and due to that reason, the belt was broken. So, it means there is no mechanical defect rather it happened due to the negligence on the part of the complainant and after repairing, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 23.09.2015. As per the vehicle history card Ex.OP14 and thereafter, the vehicle was again brought by the complainant on 20.10.2015 and vehicle was again repaired and bill is ready, the vehicle history card is also on the same page of Ex.OP-14. So, the factum for bringing a vehicle on 20.10.2015 is concealed by the complainant in his complaint rather the complainant alleged that from 25.08.2015 he asked OP No.4 several time even on 12.09.2015 for repair of the vehicle, but no satisfactory reply was given. This version of the complainant is further falsified by the OP by bringing on the file a copy of email message for taking of delivery of the vehicle, the said email message was given on 26.10.2015 and copy of the same is available on the file Ex.OP-33, but this document is not controverted by the complainant in any manner. So, it means that the vehicle of the complainant is still ready for delivery but the complainant is adamant to get a replacement of the old vehicle with new vehicle one, but this thing can be done only, if the complainant is able to establish on the file that there is any manufacturing defect with the vehicle but in this case, the complainant has not brought on the file any cogent and convincing evidence to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and these facts are further corroborated with the vehicle history cards Ex.OP-14 to Ex.OP-29 and even the complainant has not examined or called any engineer/mechanic of the OP to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather the OP has brought on the file affidavit of one Maninder Kumar, the service adviser of the OP, who categorically deposed that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and if, any manufacturing defect would have been there, it would have surfaced within first few kilometers only. The vehicle in question was run approximately 1,04,302 KM as on 24.08.2015 and further deposed that no such alleged problem of smoke and hunting in the engine was reported by the complainant till 24.08.2015 and also not visible during the service of vehicle. The fact is that the said vehicle is mishandled and misused by the complainant, the complainant used the vehicle with carrying overloaded material and if any problem occurred in the vehicle, the same was due to poor maintenance and bad driving on the part of the complainant. No such alleged problem was ever informed to the OPs by the complainant and the alleged problems are after thought and stated with the intention to get the illegal claim and further deposed that the complainant in order to harass the OP, intentionally left the vehicle on 20.10.2015 and in spite of reminder and request to the complainant, he intentionally did not take the delivery of the vehicle and then OP No.3 informed the complainant through email and SMS to lift his vehicle. The affidavit Ex.OP2/A of the Service Adviser itself established the entire case of the OP and the version of the OP is further supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2012 (3) CPJ 529, title “Santosh Devi Vs. Hyundai South Regional Office and Others” and another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 1996(2) CPJ 229, title “Amarnath Singh Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra and Others”.
11. If we see the case of the complainant in the light of the above detailed discussion, then we conclude that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the file that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and moreover, the vehicle of the complainant is ready for delivery but the complainant himself did not take the delivery, despite receiving email and SMS. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. However, the complainant is at liberty to get the delivery of the vehicle from the OP as the same is repaired. So, accordingly, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and therefore, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
08.11.2017 Member President
