Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/6

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHAKRA SERVICE STATION PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SAHAI

20 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                     Consumer Complaint No.06 of 2020

                                                Date of institution: 13.02.2020

                                              Date of Decision: 20.08.2021

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Gian Singh, resident of Village Phassey PO Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bhakra Service Station Private Limited, Bhakra Hyundai NH 21, Chandigarh Ropar Road, near Toll Barrier Ropar, through its Proprietor/Managing Director
2. Mahindra Finance Branch Second Floor SCO 35, Beant Singh Aman Nagar, Bela Road Near Easy Day Showroom Ropar, Tehsil & District, Ropar through its Branch Manager   

                                                    ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                       Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Pardeep Sahai, Adv. counsel for complainant

OP No.1 exparte

Sh. Mohinderpal Singh, Adv. counsel for OP No.2

 

              

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that he had purchased one new Hyundai Grand i10, Sports CRDI bearing registration No.PB-12-AE-0562 from the OP No.1, which was financed by OP No.2. The car was within warranty up-to 03.12.2020. The service of the car was done by the CC from the OP No.1 time to time, who is authorized dealer of the Hyundai company. It is averred that every time OP No.1 had charged for the service from the CC. It is alleged that from the date of its purchase, there was problem in the engine and it used to break down on the way many times. The CC had asked the OP No.1 to check its fault but the OP No.1 has conducted its service many times but the problem was not rectified. On 19.10.2019, the car of the CC again stopped on the way and the CC had requested the OP No.1 to send his mechanic and to check the fault in the car and rectify the defect and to take the car to his workshop but the same was taken to mechanic Sony Surinder Engneering Works, who charged Rs.5100/- from the CC and replaced some parts but the car of the CC again kept on giving same problem. The CC even asked the OP No.1 to replace the vehicle since it was within warranty but nothing was done by the OP No.1. Since the car is not working properly and is within warranty period is causing mental harassment to the CC.

2.      Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 the CC has sought the replacement of the vehicle or to refund the full cost of the vehicle, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation and Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.

3.   Upon notice, the OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte.

4.   OP No.2 has filed a reply returning the complaint against the OP No.2 as gross misuse of process of law. As per the averments of the reply, it is alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.2. The contents of the complaint are denied. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part has prayed for the dismissal of complaint in total.

4.   CC in support of this complaint has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit of Ex.C1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12. On the other   hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence duly          sworn affidavit of Sh. Chetan Sharma, Defence Manager of OP No.2        Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B & Ex.OP2/C.

5.   We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

6.   No doubt, the grievance of the CC mainly is against OP No.1, who is ex-parte. Actual grievance of the CC is that from the very first day of the purchase of his car in the year 2017 it started giving trouble since the engine of the car used to stop midway. Thus, he has alleged some kind of defect in his car, which is continuing from the date of its purchase i.e. 2017 and has sought either the replacement or to refund of the amount.

7.   It is pertinent to mention here that in the entire complaint, there is no document to support the averments of the CC that his car is has some kind of manufacturing defect or even a particular kind of defect. We have perused each and every document submitted by the CC along with the complaint. We have also perused all his service/job cards, there is nothing in those service job card which was prepared by the OP No.1 time to time regarding the alleged defect in the car. No expert opinion of any mechanic or any expert agency is submitted at the time of evidence. It is not prima facie established that the car of the CC is having any manufacturing defect or any such defect as alleged in the complaint by the CC. It is writ-large on the file that the service of the car was done by the OP No.1 time to time from the date of its purchase but not even a single job card as the OP No.1 is showing reflects any defect in the engine or any objections raised by the CC with the OP No.1 regarding the alleged defect in the car.

8.   The learned counsel for the CC has submitted one judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as Iswar Bhai C. Patel Vs Harihar Behera and Anr, wherein it is mentioned that if a party does not enter into the witness box and adverse presumption has to be drawn against that party. He has specifically argued that since the OP No.1 is exparte and has not chosen to contest the claim in that event the complaint should be allowed.

9.   It is pertinent to mention here that Consumer Commissions are governed under a special Act. It is settled principle of law, where there is a special Act it prevails upon the general Act. In such type of consumer disputes, it is incumbent upon the complainant to file a sufficient evidence to proceed against the OP No.1. There is no cogent, reliable or even any evidence on the file to prove that the car of the CC had any manufacturing defect or even any defect as alleged in the complaint. We feel that a Consumer Commission cannot be used as a tool for causing harassment to the other parties. No doubt, the OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte. We feel, that when there was nothing against it and no prima facie evidence was found probably that could be the reason that the OP No.1 had chosen not to attend the court or respond to the allegations of the CC which had no substance. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as titled above is not applicable in the present circumstances of the case, where the CC has miserably failed to bring even prima facie evidence in his favour.

10. Taking into consideration, the present complaint of the CC on merits deserves dismissal as far as the OP No.1 is concerned. The CC has not alleged any deficiency in service against OP No.2. However, no order as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

•  

August 20, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•