Delhi

North East

CC/500/2015

Vinod Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Auto Need India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 500/15

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Vinod Chand S/o Shri Devi Dutt Pant R/o: H.No. D-518, Maszid Gali West Vinod Nagar Delhi-110092	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Auto Needs India Pvt. Ltd. Office at: E-1/4 Pandav Nagar Opp. Mother Dairy Plant Patparganj New Delhi   Apex Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.-470, Industrial Area Patparganj, New Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

22.12.2015 13.04.2022 18.05.2022

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a brand new Hero Maestro, (two wheeler) from Opposite Party No. 1 on 06.10.2015. Complainant had paid total sum of Rs. 53,746/- vide invoice no. 10378-02-SINV-1015-4445. The said scooter had 5 year warranty. It is submitted by the Complainant that in the month of October 2015 when he was going to Vasant Kunj suddenly the vehicle was stopped. Complainant had to tow the vehicle at his home and paid Rs. 800/-. On the very next day Complainant took the vehicle to authorized service center of Opposite Parties. Complainant was shocked when the officer of the Opposite Party No. 2 told the Complainant that the engine of vehicle has been seized. It is alleged by the Complainant that despite the vehicle under warranty Opposite Party No. 2 demanded Rs. 3,338/- for repairing the vehicle. Complainant had paid the said amount. It is also alleged by the Complainant that engineer of Opposite Party No. 2, Mr. Rajesh told that the engine was seized due to in sufficient/defected engine oil.
2. Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 53,746/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. and refund the amount of Rs. 3,338/-. He has also claimed Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain & suffering, loss of business and deficiency of service. It is also prayed by the Complainant to award Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation charges.
3. Complainant had attached copy of warranty card, copy of invoices dated 06.10.2015, copy of insurance policy, copy of invoice dated 20.11.2015, copy of cash/credit memo dated 18.10.2015 and copy of cash/credit memo.

Case of Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2

4. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that Complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of unnecessary party and the manufacturer of the vehicle is not impleaded as a party which is the necessary party as the vehicle was having manufacturer warranty for 5 year or 50,000 Km whichever is earlier.
5. It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that Complainant had brought his vehicle at service center i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 for non-working of engine. The said problem in the engine was checked in the presence of   Complainant.  At the time of checking the engine there was sand/soil found inside the engine and Complainant confirmed that the sand/soil was mixed by someone as the vehicle was parked in open area, and the Complainant made the payment for repair without any protest.
6. It is also submitted by the Opposite Parties that Complainant availed the first free service on 18.10.2015 at 537 Km and engine oil was changed but no such sand/oil or any other material was found inside the engine and no such fault/defect was found or reported by Complainant at the time of first free service.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2

7. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties wherein he has denied the preliminary objections raised by the Opposite Parties and he has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of warranty card, copy of invoices dated 06.10.2015, copy of insurance policy, copy of invoice dated 20.11.2015, copy of cash/credit memo dated 18.10.2015 and copy of cash/credit memo.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2

9. In order to prove its case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Chander Das, S/o Shri K.K. Das, Manager, Auto Needs Pvt. Ltd. having office at 407, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-92.

Arguments and Conclusion

10.  We have heard the Complainant and Counsel for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a two wheeler from the Opposite Party No. 1. It is also admitted that the engine of the two wheeler was seized during the warranty period. The case of the Complainant is that the said engine was seized due to some manufacturing defect. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that the engine was seized as sand/soil was found in the engine of the two wheeler. It is important to note that the Complainant has reported only one incident of seizing of the engine. After its repair by the Opposite Party No. 2 there is no allegation regarding the seizing of the engine. Had there been a manufacturing defect in the engine, there would have been certainly a complaint regarding the seizing of the engine even after the repair. As per the case of the Opposite Parties sand/soil was found in the engine. No evidence has been led by the Complainant that the two wheeler was always park in safe custody. Therefore, the possibility of mixing the sand/soil in the engine by some bad element cannot be ruled out. It is also important to note that Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that there was a manufacturing defect in the two wheeler.
11. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we do not see any merit in the complaint and the Complainant is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President