Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 81.
Instituted on : 18.02.2015.
Decided on : 15.09.2016.
Ramesh Bansal s/o Sh. Nanu Ram r/o H.No.1224 Ward no.24, Jagdish colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd.(a unit of Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd., Karnal), Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opp. 2nd Entrance Sector 1 Rohtak through its Manager.
- Renault Head Office, ASV Ramana Tower 37/38, 4th Floor Venkat Narayana Road, T Nagar Chennai, Tamilnadu through its Managing Director.
- Renault Regional Office Suit No.1, Vatika Business Centre, 2nd Floor, Vatika Triangle, Sushant Phase 1 Block A, M.G.Road, Gurgaon through Regional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Parmar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a vehicle Duster from the opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.PY-13-14/RTK/215 dated 14.11.2013 and got the same registered vide registration no.HR-12W-1827. It is averred that after some time it was found that the paint disband from the fender and bonnet and accordingly the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party and requested to change the said vehicle because the vehicle supplied by the opposite party is having manufacturing defect. It is averred that complainant many times requested the opposite party either to change the vehicle or to refund the price thereof alongwith interest but in vain. It is averred that opposite party had issued a letter dated 15.12.2014 asking the complainant to get his vehicle repaint from the workshop. It is averred that opposite party is liable to replace the vehicle with new one because the same is having manufacturing defect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the vehicle with new one or to refund the price thereof alongwith interest, also to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- for mental agony & harassment and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that at the time of sale of vehicle, the complainant was handed over with the warranty cum service booklet enumerating the terms and conditions. The complainant accepted the same and got his free service of the vehicle. It is averred that as per warranty conditions there is no provision for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle under any condition. It is averred that complainant approached the answering opposite party with the alleged problem of peeling of the paint, the same looked into on priority and on investigation it became clear that the problem in the vehicle has occurred due to handling of the vehicle by the complainant and no proper care being taken by the complainant. It is averred that the complainant refused to get the vehicle repaired for the reason best known to him and the answering opposite parties are still ready to get rectify the problem. It is denied that the vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties did not file any evidence and the evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 08.07.2016 of this Forum and the opposite parties were also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.07.2016 of this Forum.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a car from the opposite parties on dated 14.11.2013 as per Invoice Ex.C5. It is also not disputed that there was problem of ‘Paint disband from fender & Bonnet’ in the alleged vehicle which appeared during warranty period and as per letter Ex.C4 opposite party asked the complainant to get repaint the vehicle from the workshop of the opposite parties as the vehicle was within warranty period. As per repair order dated 01.12.2014 placed on record as Ex.C9 it is admitted by the opposite parties that they checked the vehicle and it need to repair and there was problem of paint in the alleged vehicle. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the defect appeared in the vehicle within short period as there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle and as such he requested the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle or to refund of price from the opposite parties but the same was not done. On the other hand, contention of opposite parties is that the there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and they are ready to get the problem rectified but the complainant refused to get the same repaired. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that it is admitted by the opposite parties that the defect regarding paint etc. had appeared during the warranty period. But regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle, no evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that complainant shall handover the vehicle in question to the opposite parties within 15 days and in turn opposite parties shall remove the defects regarding ‘paint issue’ of the car at their own expenses after taking satisfaction letter from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within 15 days from the date of handing over the vehicle by the complainant with the opposite parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
