Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/59/2009

Neelam Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, North Bihar Diesel & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sanjay Kumar Thakur and Ashok Kumar

25 Mar 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

                        Complain Case No. - 59/2009.

1. Neelam Kumari  W/o Shri Ajit Kumar Jha, Residence of   village –Jageshwar Bhawan Bhavdeppur P.S- Bhawdepur, District-Sitamarhi

 

2. Abhiram Jha S/o late- Tejnarayan Jha  residence of village Naya Tola, Post-Mahisual ……………………………….. complainants 

V/s

1. Branch Manager, North Bihar Diesel speaker chowk, Kalmbag Road, P.S.- Kazimohamdhpur, District-Muzaffarpur
2. Mnager TATA Motors  Limited DGP house 4^th floor old Prabha Devi Road Mumbai-400025…………………………………….Opposite party. 

Date of order- 25-03-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                           President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh- Member

        Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

Advocates for complainant – Shri Sanjay Kumar Thakur and Ashok Kumar Jha Advocates for Opposite Party- Shri  Jagat Narayan  Ray, Shri Shashikant Dwivadi , Prashant Kumar, Shri Om prakash Suman, P.K.Singh and Md.wzzaman Ansari.

Order

           

The complainant has filed this case for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation from the opposite party.

It appears from the complaint petition as well as detail complaint that the complainant  has purchased TATA LP-909 Bus on 28-04-2008 for her livelihood,  after registration having registration No. BR06P- 6197 the Vehicle was started his running from 22-05-2008 Meanwhile in January, 2009 the vehicle was stopped due to defect arises in Hydraulic head and Gaskit which was complained by the complainant  to the opposite party no.-1 who has assured that it should be rectified  after  getting enquiry from his engineer. Accordingly opposite party no.-1 has send engineer at her door in January, 2009 who stated that the said defect has not been cured. He has stated that the said part is taken to be agency for then it can be cured. On the faith of said engineer  the complainant consented, accordingly the engineer has after opining the Hydraulic head and Gaskit has taken to his agency with assurance that it should be installed within one month after its rectification. One month  time has been lapsed accordingly  she contacted through telephone to the opposite party no-1 who has stated that till that date the Gaskit and Hydraulic head have not been collected after cure from the agency certain  time is also required . Again after 10 days she came to the agency with her witnesses  the opposite party has assured within one week the article will come. Latter on after one week on dated 13-03-2009 the opposite party no.-1 has expressly stated that the said hydraulic  head and Gaskit should not be rectified, she should purchase new one and install in her vehicle so that her vehicle should move. After hearing the said fact she became astronished that at the time of purchase of the bus the opposite party no.1 has assured that within one year of the purchase. If any defect arises it should be cured without fee because TATA motors had already given one years guaranty. The vehicle of the complainant  was stopped about 2 month at her door, by which she suffered heavy loan as the installment of the loss of the bus was also raises lastly on 16-03-2009 she purchase new hydraulic and Gaskit for Rs. 9920/- from the said agency and after installing the same he vehicle started running as such she has suffered loss of Rs. 2,50,000/-, accordingly she demanded  Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation in this case.

She has filed the Xerox copy of legal notice without date annexure- 1 registered postal receipt annexure-2, another legal notice dated 09-04-2009 send by opposite party no.1 to the lawyer of complainant in the reply of his notice annexure-3, copy of certificate of registration of vehicle annexure-4, copy of permit annexure-5, copy of   general condition of permit annexure-6 copy of tax token annexure-7, copy of insurance of vehicle annexure-8, copy of receipt of higher purchase annexure-9, copy of insurance annexure-10, copy of pollution certificate  annexure-11, copy of receipt of Rs. 25600/- annexure-12 and copy of cash invoice annexure-13.

            In this case opposite party no.-1 and 2 appeared and have filed there written statement dated 01-02-2010 and 08-09-2009 respectively.

Opposite party no.1 has alleged in his written statement that all the allegations against him alleged by complainant is baseless and wrong he is only authorize to give free service regarding the parts installed in the vehicle by the company. If any miss happening arises during the warranty period of any part of the vehicle the opposite party  no.1 as only authorize to get it procured/repair  after enquiry and if any claim arises he can send his report to the company and if any claim arises he can report the company and he is mediator between the purchaser from company. He has further alleged that the alleged hydraulic head and gaskit were sent to the MICO company and he has not assured the complainant in any case to change the parts. The Hydraulic head and Gaskit were tested in the company laboratory, it found that due to not proper care and properly kept the parts were damage for which the company is not responsible for that. His claim was refused by the company and was acknowledged him. She has filed this case having no any legal base the opposite party is not responsible for change any part within warranty period as such he has prayed to dismiss the case.

The opposite party no.2   has alleged in his written statement dated 08-09-2009 that the complaint has filed this case with ulterior motive, having no specific allegation against the opposite party. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.-2 he has admitted that the complainant has purchased the hydraulic head and Gas kit from the MICO company the warranty is  with MICO company  this opposite party has no any responsibility. He has further alleged that it evident from reply of his legal notice given by the opposite party no.1 it would clear that defect are due to mishandling, bad filtration etc and as such defect are not covered under the warranty given by the MICO company. The MICO company has rejected the claim of complainant as such no case is make out against the opposite party no.-2.

In support of case of the complainant she has filed affidavit of one Abhiram Jha who  is complainant no.-2 and one another affidavit of Balram Jha, both have supported the case of the complainant.

            on perusal of document filed by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has not filed any paper of warranty given by the opposite party to him for the allege party vehicle now, it is clear on the basis of allegation made by the complainant that his case is only based on oral guaranty given by opposite party  no.1 which has been denied totally by the o.p.no.1 that he is only to mediate the purchaser with the company if defect arises in any part of the bus, he has not given any warranty /guaranty for change of any part. The opposite party no.1 has replied  the legal notice send by the complainant as well as by his written statement that he is not authorize to change the any party which found defective within time period. Admittedly the part was of MICO company and as per reply of legal notice annexure -3 that he has send redressal of claim of complainant to the MICO company who has rejected the claim of complainant which was duly communicated to the complainant.

Considering the facts and circumstances material available with the record as well as document filed by the complainant  it appears that the claim of compensation of complainant  is only based on oral assurance given by the opposite party no.-1 at the time of purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant  is duty bound produce the document of warranty regarding the alleged part, which she has not substantiated  by any documentary prove which is necessary for her and her claim because her claim is based on warranty given by the opposite party. As such it is apparent to say that the claimant is not able to prove her case as such she is not said to be entitled for any claim and her case is not maintainable.

  Accordingly  the case is and the same is dismissed with cost. 

 

President                                                                            Member