Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/4/2016

Salasar Complex and Buldcon Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Audi India - Opp.Party(s)

M.I.Khan

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 04 /2016

 

Salasar Complex & Buildcom Pvt.Ltd. B-4, Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

1.Audi India, Head office 3, North Avenue, Lavel -3 Maker Maxcity Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai

2. Kamal & Company Premise, Opp.GPO, M.I.Road, Jaipur.

 

Date of presentation of complaint 12.1.2016

Date of Order 14.02.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. M.I.Khan counsel for the complainant

Mr. Ravi Sharma counsel for the non-applicant no.1

Mr.Abhinandan Jain counsel for non-applicant no.2

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant has purchased a Audi car on 2.6.2014. After use it was found on 4.6.2014 that alignment of car is defective. It is going in left direction and on 14.9.2014 it was revealed that steering head of the car is noisy hence, a defective car has been sold to the complainant. Thereafter first service was done. On 17.12.2014 engine of the car was get seized. It was sent to the service centre but the complainant was not given replacement of new car. Hence, it is not only deficiency of service on the part of the non-applicant but also unfair trade practice.

 

The contention of the non-applicants is that the complainant has purchased the car in the name of company. He is using the car for commercial purpose hence, he does not come under the definition of consumer. The complaint is not filed with true facts. On 25.8.2014 the car was brought to the workshop with accidental damages. It was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Again it was received on

3

30.9.2013 with complaint in steering which was replaced on 2.10.2014. On 4.11.2014 with some complaints again it was received with the service centre and after necessary repairs it was delivered to the complainant on the same day. On 24.11.2014 again car was received by them for accidental repairs. It was repaired and delivered to the complainant after due satisfaction. On 17.12.2014 car brought to the service centre in break down condition and it was found that due to coolant leakage it was seized. Accidental damages are not covered under warranty. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the non-applicant. The vehicle was accidented two times in six months. After reminders the complainant is not ready to have the delivery of the car and just to pressurize them this false complaint has been filed.

 

Both the parties have entered into evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and supporting documents on record.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the car was purchased by the complainant on 2.6.2014. The further contention of the complainant is that first service was done but no date has been disclosed and nothing has been said that

4

 

on first service there was any defect in the car. No job sheet has been submitted for the same. The complainant straight way has designed a case that on 17.12.2014 the car was break downed and at that time his brother Ali Akbar Khan and his friend Udai Pratap were in the vehicle but non-applicants have referred number of dates as stated earlier on which date car was received by them for service and necessary documents have also been submitted to support their contention. Vide Anx. C job card dated 25.8.2014 car was received by them and it was delivered to the customer after satisfaction certificate. Anx. C clearly narrates that accidental repairs were to be done. On 30.9.2014 vide Anx. D the car was received by them with the complaint of noisy steering which was replaced and again delivered to the complainant. On 4.11.2014 and 24.11.2014 vide Anx. E & F again car was repaired by the non-applicants and Anx. F also shows that accidental repairs were done. Hence, the contention of the complainant that car was having manufacturing defect has no basis rather it is more than clear from the reply of the non-applicant alongwith the connected documents that car was accidented twice in six months and at the time of first service no manufacturing defect was complained.

5

 

The complainant has not submitted any document to support the contention that the car was having any manufacturing defect and further more no report of expert is brought on record to fortify this contention. The counsel for the complainant has relied on the affidavit of Ravinder Singh who has stated in his affidavit that he is engaged in repairs of the vehicle and after checking of the vehicle he has found that there are number of defects in the vehicle and he advised complainant to get it replace. To utter surprise of this Commission this affidavit was prepared and sworn on 1.6.2014 whereas as per case of the complainant the vehicle was purchased on 2.6.2014. Hence, affidavit has been prepared prior to purchase of the vehicle which has no evidentiary value and counsel for the non-applicant has rightly relied upon 1 (2009) CPJ 220 (NC) Vikram Bajaj Vs. Hind Motors Ltd. where the National Commission has held that certificate without affidavit regarding defects in the vehicle is of no value and further if qualification of person giving certificate not known, it cannot be relied upon. Here in the present case also apart from the fact that Ravinder Singh has sworn the affidavit prior to purchase of the vehicle, he has not disclosed his qualification and further he could not have any occasion to

6

 

inspect the vehicle as till 1.6.2014 the vehicle was not sold to the complainant.

 

Non-applicants relied upon IV (2010) CPJ 229 (NC) Krishna Kanhaiya Gontiya Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. where the National Commission held that when problems recorded in job cards do not point out any manufacturing defect oral contention could not prove the case which also the case here.

 

As per contention of the complainant on 17.12.2014 when car got seized Ali Akbar Khan brother of the complainant and Udai Pratap were in the car but no affidavits of these two persons have been submitted. Per contra the affidavit of Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary who is an advocate has submitted his affidavit who has no knowledge of the facts and has not disclosed in affidavit that what is the nature of his job in the company. He was not with the vehicle on any of the dates. Affidavit of Firoz Khan has also been submitted but admittedly he was not with the vehicle on 17.12.2014. Hence, all these evidences has no evidentiary value and liable to be discarded.

 

7

 

Hence, in view of the above there is no merit in the present complaint.

 

The non-applicant has rightly submitted that accidental damage is not covered under the warranty.

 

The non-applicants have also raised objections as regard to maintainability of the complaint in this Commission. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the name of Salasar Complex and Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Hence, the objection of non-applicants that vehicle is being used for commercial purpose is proved on the face of it. In para no. 3 of the complaint the complainant himself has pleaded that he suffered loss in business meaning thereby that he is using the vehicle for his business.

 

During the course of arguments it has been stated by the complainant that car was purchased for his personal use but to support this contention nothing has been brought on record and this fact has not been pleaded in the complaint. Hence, in view of the fact that the car was purchased for commercial purpose this complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not

8

 

fall in the definition of' 'consumer'.

 

As clear from the above consideration Mr.Ravindra Singh s/o Shri Swarn Singh has submitted a false affidavit before the Forum it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry be made under section 340 Criminal Procedure Code hence, a notice be issued to him.

 

In view of above the complaint stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm