Haryana

Ambala

CC/12/2015

Jai Bhagwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashokley Land Light Vehicle Divn. - Opp.Party(s)

L.R.Saini

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No.  : 12 of 2015.

        Date of Institution    : 16.01.2015.

            Date of Decision      : 24.10.2017

 

Jai Bhagwan son of Shri Babu Ram resident of House No.247 Village and Post Office Jagdhauli, Tehsil Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Ashok Leyland Light Vehicle Divn. Head office 3^rd Floor Block No.1 Tample Shoppe No.184-187 Anna Salai Mount Chennai, 600015, Ph.049-6695 through its Managing Director.
2. P.N.G. Automobiles Pvt. Limited through its Authorized Dealer Ashok Leyland (Light Vehicles) Ambala Saha Road through Sales Manager village Mangali Ambala Cantt.

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

           

Present:          Sh. R.K.Singhal, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Rajiv Sachdeva, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased a Pick Van (Dost) from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- on 15.01.2014. At the time of purchase of vehicle, it was assured to the complainant that if any defects occurs within one year or upto 50000 KMs whichever is earlier then the same would be removed free of costs. On the day of purchasing of the vehicle when the complainant had covered a distance of 20 KMs then it was noticed that front window of the vehicle got blurred/dim  and when he reached at home then further noticed that the alignment of the same was also disturbed. The OPs assured that the same would be replaced but till date it has not been done so. On 21.06.2014 both the rear tyers of the vehicle got blast despite the fact that it happened during the warranty period. The complainant got the same replaced from Laxmi Agency near Anaj Mandi Gate Road Ladwa on 21.06.2014 by paying a sum of Rs.8800/- but the OP No.2 had only provided Rs.2300/- for the same. on 21.08.2014 when the complainant was on the way to Rajasthan then clutch box of the vehicle got damaged near Hisar. The complainant contacted the OPs but when no alternate was found then Op No.1 asked the complainant to get the same repaired from Chaudhary Motors, Delhi Road, Hisar where the vehicle was repaired but the service centre had charged Rs.3283/- from the complainant. Thereafter the Op No.2 replaced the clutch box after charging despite the fact that the vehicle in warranty period and in this regard a job card dated 13.01.2015 was also issued.  The OPs have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant as the Op No.2 asked to leave the vehicle at the workshop due to problem in chasis. The complainant requested the OPs to pay compensation qua this lapse and also got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- on repair/replacement of spare parts and Rs.3,50,000/-  as cost of damage as the complainant could not drive the vehicle during night hours. The act and conduct of OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C20.

2.                     On notice, Ops appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being filed by suppressing of material facts and even the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as the vehicle in question is a commercial one. The complainant has not disclosed that he had added 4 leaf spring in back side and heavy Bull Bar in front side of opposite bumper of the vehicle in question in order to carry extra load, however, the loading capacity of the vehicle was 1.25 tonnes (12.5 quintals as per warranty terms and conditions manual). The average of the vehicle was 12 KMPL during normal condition of the vehicle. The mirror/glass and AC of the vehicle are working properly and the complainant has never made any complaint regarding this. The warranty terms does not cover wear and tear parts or bought out items such as tyres and for any defect the complainant was to approach manufacturer of the tyre. At the time of lodging of complaint the tyres had already run 32545 KMs and normal life of the tyres is 32000 to 35000 KMs but despite that a sum of Rs.2300/- were refunded to the complainant after deducting the depreciation value of the tyres. The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant in perfect running condition and free from any defect and if any problem has occurred then the same is due to overloading of the vehicle which could be seen from the modification by adding extra leaves to the vehicle. The complainant has not spent Rs.1,50,000/- on the repairs/ replacement of the vehicle as well as non plying the same during night time. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure RX & Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R18.

3.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

4.                     The complainant has come to this Forum with the grievance that there was no clear vision in the mirror/glass and the tyres in question have become defective less than six months of the purchase of the vehicle and he had to get the same replaced by purchasing the same by spending a sum of Rs.8800/- (Annexure C4) on the assurance that the cost thereof would be borne by the Op No.2 but it had only paid a sum of Rs.2500/- on the false deduction on the ground of depreciation. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that clutch plate/gear box got damaged during the warranty period and the complainant got the same replaced/repair by spending a sum of Rs.3283/- (Annexure C5) from his own pocket.

5.                     Perusal of Annexure R13 (job cards) reveals that the vehicle in question was firstly brought to the Op No.2 on 14.04.2014 for first free service and no defect has been mentioned in Annexure R13 and Annexure R14 and Annexure R15 are part of job card. Further perusal of Annexure R18 (job card for second free service) reveals that the service qua Oil Filter/Spin on Type, Cartridge-Fuel Filter, Gear Box Oil, Engine Oil and Wheel alignment were got done free of costs. The history of vehicle at the time of third free service shows that service qua FDR ASSY-RR, Rub Pad, Engine Oil, Oil Filter Spin on Tyre, Break Fluid, CLP-Jack Handle, Pivot seat, Wheel alignment was done free of costs on 24.06.2014. On 20.08.2014 fourth free service qua MBR Compl/FR-Susp, Rub Pad, Pivot seat, Disc Assy-Clutch, Cover Assy-Clutch, R&R Fuel Feed Pump, R& R Suspension Cross Member and Magnetic Clutch Plate and Hub Assmebly was got done free of costs. As per job sheet Annexure R16 dated 21.10.2014 wherein it has been mentioned in the demanded repairs that  check clutch not working, pressure plate facing cut side by customer was got replaced. However, the service centre had charges Rs.3400/- but the complainant has affixed his signatures on this document being satisfied.  The OPs have also placed on record copy of owner manual wherein it has been mentioned that glass items  are not covered under the warranty and if any changes has been made in the vehicle then the warranty thereof would be void. In the present case the complainant has come with the plea that the clutch plates of the vehicle went out of order number of times and the complainant got the same repaired/replaced as mentioned in Annexure C5 and Annexure C14 by spending a sum of Rs.3283/- and Rs.2353/- respectively but he has not led any evidence to prove on the case file that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has not even moved an application for getting the vehicle physically examined in compliance of provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the damage to the clutch plate cannot be construed as manufacturing defect because it depends upon the handling and usage of the vehicle because the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and the complainant was being used the vehicle for loading and unloading.  Moreover, the Ops have specifically taken a stand that the vehicle was being used by the complainant after overloading and it could be seen from the modification by adding extra leaves to the  vehicle and in order to prove this fact the Ops have placed on file photographs Annexure R3 to Annexure R12 and the complainant has not disputed that the photographs are not belong to his vehicle rather he remained mum on this aspect.

                                    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 24.10.2017                                                              (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

          MEMBER                               MEMBER