Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/315/2015

Ms.Punam Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagat Ford (AB Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anmol Mehta, Adv

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	315 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	29.4.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Punam Mehta w/o Sh. Subhash Mehta House No.1079, Sector 19B, Chandigarh

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Bhagat Ford (AB Motors Pvt. Ltd., 53 Industrial Area Phase II Chandigarh) through its Directors.

 

2.  Service Manager, Car Service centre of Bhagat Ford (AB Motors Pvt. Ltd, 53, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh.)

 

3.       Ford India Pvt. Ltd, S.P. Koil Post Chengal Potto- 603204, Tamil Nadu, through its Directors.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Sanjeev K. Dhiman  

 

For OP No.1&2           :     Sh. H.S. Bedi, Adv.

For OP No.3             :     Sh. Karan Nehra, Adv.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.,      Chandigarh, setting aside the exparte order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Forum, vide its order dated 26.8.2015, remanded back the present case to this Forum, for deciding the same afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law  

2.     As per the case, the complainant, got his vehicle make Ford Mondeo bearing no. Ch-03H-0345 serviced from Opposite Party NO.2 and for which she paid service charges to it. It is stated that  Opposite Party No.2 did not properly serviced her vehicle, therefore, she made several requests to Opposite Party No.2  for re-checking the vehicle but to no avail. It is further stated  that just running 10 Kms after service at the night of same day due to faulty and negligenct service of the Opposite Parties the bonnet of the car busted open by itself while the vehicle was still on the move and shattered the front wind shield. It is alleged that the complainant approached the authorized agency of the Ford India Ltd. but nothing was done by the Opposite Parties. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice Annexure C-12 to the Opposite Parties but to no avail.  Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.
3.     Opposite Party No.1&2 has filed reply and stated that at the time of delivery of the vehicle it was specifically disclosed to the complainant regarding the defect of the vehicle required to be rectified but the complainant showed unableness to get the work done due to financial conditions.  It is pleaded that the vehicle has been manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 and the answering OPs has no role in it.  It is further pleaded that the vehicle was having a special lock at its front-hood/bonnet, without locking the bonnet, the bonnet would not he affixed on his place, except that the said bonnet is mounted with both sides shock absorbers. If the front bonnet lock is properly applied then there is no chance of opening of the bonnet. Even if the lock is not properly locked, there is no chance of the bonnet would be lifted and further hit to the front wind sheet as there is a primary lock over the bonnet and further after open the bonnet would be stayed at both the shock absorbers. In the complaint the complainant had nowhere explained that all the three locks were failed. It is alleged  that the  complainant is misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for extracting money from the answering OPs.
4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that in the entire complaint no allegation qua any manufacturing defect in the car in question has been levelled. The grievance of the complainant is against the dealership towards the service of the car in question.  The relationship of the answering Opposite Party with the dealer is principal to principal basis and it cannot be held liable for any acts and omissions of the dealer. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs No.1&2 thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1& 2 made in the reply.
6.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
8.     Counsel for the complainant controverted that the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1 failed to provide proper service to the complainant. It is claimed that the complainant got her vehicle in question serviced on 5.12.2014 from Opposite Party No.2 and received the vehicle on the same day. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not satisfied with the service rendered by Opposite Party No.2 but OPs No.1&2 denied any problem in the vehicle stating that everything is fine.  It is claimed that on good faith the complainant took delivery of the car and unfortunately when the car was driven just 10 Kms after service, the bonnet of the car busted open by itself while the vehicle was still on the move and shattered the front wind shield. It is claimed that the front wind glass was totally broken and the bonnet of the said car was also damaged.  It is alleged that this instance happened only due to the negligent service provided by Opposite Party No.2 and thus they are liable to compensate the complainant.  The matter was raised with OPs by issuing legal notice dated 22.12.2014 which failed to get any response.  So the complainant was forced to file the present complaint.
9.     On the contrary OP No.1&2 denying all the allegations of the complaint being baseless  submitted that admittedly the complainant approached for service of the vehicle with Op No.2 which was done and at the time of delivery of the said vehicle it was disclosed to the complainant regarding the defects in the vehicle which needs rectification. In annexure C-1 i.e. the job sheet dated 5.12.2014 pending job work has specifically been noted therein. In relation to the allegation qua opening of the bonnet while in running condition and thus damaging the wind screen, it has been submitted that the vehicle is having a special lock at its front-hood/bonnet and without locking the bonnet, the bonnet would not be affixed on its place and except that the said bonnet is mounted with both sides shock absorbers. It is submitted that opening of the bonnet all of a sudden is next to impossible if it is properly locked and there is no chance of opening of the bonnet. Submitted further that even if the lock is not properly locked, still there is no chance that the bonnet would be lifted and further hit to the front wind sheet as there is a primary lock over the bonnet and further after open, the bonnet would be stayed at both the shock absorbers. It has been submitted that the complaint being baseless be dismissed.
10.     After giving our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and perusal of the record, we feel that the complainant fails to prove the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of OPs by producing on record any cogent and convincing evidence.  The photographs produced on record by the complainant do not prove that the wind shield of the vehicle broke due to sudden opening of the bonnet. The complainant has also failed to prove that the lock of the bonnet was defective or the bonnet was detached from the hinges and the shock absorbers were broken. In the absence of any reliable evidence on record, the allegation of the complainant goes unproved and thus the relief claimed by the complainant cannot be granted. Hence we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.
11.     For the reasons recorded, above the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs being devoid of merit.

        

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29.4.2016

                                                                             Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER