Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/83/2014

Phool Kumari W/o Manvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assem Autos Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Bhardwaj

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 83 of 2014

                                                                                          Date of institution: 05.02.2014

                                                                                          Date of decision: 23.11.2016

 

1. Phool Kumari aged about 55 years, wife of Sh. Manvinder Singh.
2. Ripu Daman aged about 28 years, son of Manvinder Singh both residents of #258 Chopra Garden, Yamuna Nagar,

                           …Complainants.

                                                Versus

       1.Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd. , SCO- 181/182 Sector-17, Court Road, Near Jagadhri Courts, Yamuna Nagar through its partner/proprietor.

       2.Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd. 118/7 KM Stone, GT Road, Karnal-132001 through its partner/prop./Manager.

                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                       ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant

                        Ms. Seema Sehgal, Advocate for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the vehicle ‘Duster’ RXL 85 with new one and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. .

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainants, are that complainants purchased a vehicle make “Duster” RXL 85, Chassis No.MEEHSRAW5D7033517, Engine No.K9K8796E035415, colour white for an amount of Rs. 9,86,000/- vide invoice No.93, dated 25.10.2013 from the OP No.1 who is authorized agency of OP No.2. After purchase of the vehicle in question, complainants thoroughly checked the vehicle in question and on inspection it was found that the paint at the beneath of the vehicle in question was defective as instead of white colour there were dots of black colour. When the aforesaid defect came to the knowledge of complainants, then they visited the OP No.1 and requested to remove the said defect. Accordingly, the complainants left the vehicle at their service station and OP No.1 assured the complainant that they will remove the defects of the said vehicle and asked the complainant to get it back after 3 days when the complainants went to get back their vehicle then it was very shocking and appalling for the complainants that the condition of the vehicle in question was more worse as instead of removing the said colour defect, the OPs damaged the colour of aforesaid vehicle much more. On this, complainants asked the reason from the OPs that why they have not removed the defect. On this the OP showed their inability to remove the said defect and admitted that the said defect is manufacturing defect and cannot be removed. Complainants purchased the vehicle in question for their personal use and comfort but due to defective vehicle, the complainant had to hire vehicle and spent huge amount. From the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs it is ample clear that the OPs are indulging in illegal trade practice and are guilty of deficient and negligence service of the complainants. The complainants requested so many times but all in vain. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands; complainants are legally estopped from the filing of present complaint by their act and conduct  and on merit it is submitted that complainants have approached the OP No.1 with the vehicle and stated that there are some dots of black colour in the paint of the vehicle which are not acceptable to them. Upon which, the OP No.2 has stated them that if they are not liking such colour, the manufacturer will be informed and every possible work would be done in the paint of the vehicle, but the complainants remained adamant to change the vehicle with the service centre of the OP No.1. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence of affidavit of Smt. Phool Kumari as CW/A, copy of invoice/bill dated 25.10.2013 as Annexure C1, copy of legal notice dated 06.01.2014 as Annexure C2, Postal Receipt /Acknowledgement as Annexure C3 to C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainants.

5.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Nagpal as RW/A, carbon copy  of checklist as Annexure R1, copy of email dated 10.01.2014 as Annexure R2, copy of email dated 10.02.2014 as Annexure R3 and R4, photocopy of resolution as Annexure R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only contention of the complainant is that they have purchased a vehicle “Duster” RXL 85, white colour for an amount of Rs.9,86,000/- from the OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and after purchasing the vehicle in question, they thoroughly checked their vehicle and on inspection it was found by the complainant that the paint at beneath  of the vehicle in question was defective as instead of white colour, there were dots of black colour and the OP No.1 could not remove the same despite their requests. Rather, the OP No.1 deteriorated the colour of the vehicle in question, hence, the complainants are entitled to get replace their vehicle with new one. However, the contention of the complainants is not tenable  as the complainants have totally failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove their version. Even, the complainants have not filed any expert report in support of their case. Further, the complainants have also not filed any application for appointment of Local Commissioner. Even, the complainants have also not placed any job-sheet issued by the OP No.1. Just mere filing the copy of invoice No.93 dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure C1) and copy of legal notice (Annexure C2), it cannot be said that complainants have discharged their onus to prove the deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice  on the part of the OPs. As such, the complainants have totally failed to file any evidence in support of their version. Hence, we have no option except to hold that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

8.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above we are of the considered view that the complainants have totally failed to prove their case. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Pronounced in open court: 23.11.2016.

 

                              (S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

             MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                                            DCDRF Yamuna Nagar