CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2021
Date of institution: 09.04.2021
Date of Decision: 27.06.2022
Pardeep Singh, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Mohan Singh, resident of Village Bhatoli, Post Office Kiratpur Sahib, TEhsil Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar
….Complainant
Versus
- Bharatbenz Globle CT Private Limited, Village Mehndipur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, 141401, through its Manager
- Bharatbenz Globe CV Private Limited, SCO No.24, New Anaj Mandi Bhatha Sahib, Ropar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar through its Manager
……..Opposite Parties
QUORUM:
HON'BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.
HON'BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
PRESENT:
Sh.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for OPs
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that on 22.06.2018, the complainant had purchased a vehicle namely Bharatbenz 4928 TT (6X4) AC bearing Chassis No.MEC281CFJP065183 and Engine No.400953D0065058 manufactured in the year 2018, bearing registration No.PB-65-AS-5781. After few days of its purchase, the complainant had observed manufactured defect in the said vehicle and immediately reported to the OP No.1 and then OP No.1 has directed the complainant to contact the OP No.2 as the OP No.2 is branch office/workshop. The engineers of the OPs have tried many times to remove the defect in the said vehicle. However, the OPs was unable to remove the defect of the said vehicle. The OP No.2 had taken the vehicle of the complainant on 16.8.2018, 21.8.2018, 22.12.2018, 19.01.2018, 4.3.2019, 13.4.2019, 2.5.2019, 4.12.2019 and on various dates, which are clearly mentioned in the job card of the vehicle i.e upto 2.6.2021. Vehicle was sold by the OP is consuming more mobile oil, which is clearly mentioned in the job card prepared by the OP. The complainant had told to the Ops many times that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question due to that reason, the vehicle is consuming more mobile oil, but the OP replied that the vehicle is new one so let it run on the road. But again and again this problem reoccurred and the complainant reported the OPs on various occasions as mentioned in the job card. But the OP repeated the same reply to let the vehicle run on the road, but till date the OPs are unable to rectify the above said vehicle as there is a manufacturing defect in the same. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle by taking the loan and the complainant is paying the installments of the loan amount. As the vehicle remained stand in the office/workshop of the OP No.2, the complainant was unable to earn his livelihood from the vehicle in question and the complainant was unable to pay the installments and due to this reason, the complainant has also suffered monetary loss due to the fault of the OPs. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OPs either to replace the vehicle in question with new one or to refund the whole price amount of the vehicle
- To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses
The complaint of the CC is signed and also verified.
2. In reply, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 has taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and is concealing true and material facts from this Hon'ble Commission; that the complainant does not disclose his grievance regarding any deficiency in service or irresponsible act on the part of the answering OP; that there is no cause of action against the answering OPs to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose with a purpose of earning profits/additional income and not for livelihood by means of self employment, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. Complainant is running a shop under the name and style Kiratpur Tyres and the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purposes with a purpose of earning profits/additional income and not for livelihood by means of self employment. The dealership of the complainant deals in the sales and after sales service of the vehicle manufactured by Dailmer India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited, who has not been arrayed as opposite party in the present complaint by the complainant. The vehicles manufactured by DICV passes through strict quality tests and after due certifications/PDI by the quality department of the manufacturing company, the vehicle are rolled out from the manufacturer facility for owned sale to the customer. The manufacturer company is globally renowned for manufacturing of quality vehicles and carries a great reputation in this regard. It is further stated that from the service history of the vehicle in question that the vehicle in question is in possession and continuous used by the complainant as the vehicle in question had clocked about 145723 KMs as on 22.7.2021. As and when the vehicle in question reported to the dealership of the OP, the same was properly attended by the dealership of the answering OP. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The engine oil consumption in the vehicle depends upon a number of factors including usage conditions like frequent break and long engine idling also leads to increase in rate of engine oil consumption. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on their part, the O.Ps. has denied any deficiency in service on their part.
4. The complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has tendered documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
8. It is undisputed, the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the job card prepared by the OP, which shows that the complainant visited the OPs to remove the defects in the engine oil like consuming more engine oil. The engineers of the OPs have tried many times to remove the defect in the said vehicle but the OPs were unable to remove the defect in the said vehicle. Till date, the problem is exist.
10. It is also proved on record that complainant has repeatedly visited the OPs with same problem and he has been returned with minor repairs without permanently solving the basis problem of the pickup of the vehicle. Though, OPs have cited many authorities but each case has its own facts, but here multiple visits by the complainant with the relevant problem to the OP, and each time minor repairs of the vehicle without solving the fundamental problem is proved on record of the case.
11. In the light of above discussion and in the light of totality of the circumstances, the claim of the complainant is proved to be genuine. Consequently, OPs are liable to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with the new one. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The said O.Ps. are also directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
June 27, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
President
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
