Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/27

Mehma Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.P.M.L. Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S. S. Johal, Adv

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  27 of 11.04.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     18.07.2018

 

Mehma Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sh. Parkash Singh, resident of Village Patial, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. C.P.M.L Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCF no.25, Ananj Mandi, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

2. C.P.M.L. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ward No.7, Near Govt. Primary School Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)  

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. S.S.Johal, Adv. counsel for complainant 

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, Adv. counsel for O.Ps 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to supply the new vehicle with the old one; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation as business and financial loss and expenditure incurred by the complainant for arranging other vehicles for the supply of the milk and damages for harassment along with interest @ 12% per annum on the whole amount till its realization.

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that complainant is running Tanveer Dairy farming at Village patial, Tehsil & District Rupnagar in the name of his minor son namely Tanveer Singh, since 2013 and he used to supply milk at different places within a radius of 45-50 K.M. On 11.12.2017, he had purchased a TATA ACE JIP BS-IV  bearing registration No.PB-65-Ar-6617 from the O.Ps. from their Branch Ananj Mandi Rupnagar, for a sum of Rs.2,47,000/-. After two months of its purchase, complainant came to know that there is a manufacturing defect in the engine of the said vehicle as the sudden break down of the engine of the vehicle started during the plying. Due to the manufacturing defect in the engine the vehicle used to stop all of sudden some time in between the road, some time in between the open crossing of the railways and even in the market due to which a great hardship was caused to the complainant as the supply of milk used to be affected as he has to take the supply of milk within stipulated period time otherwise the milk used to go waste due to bad smell. In that situation he has to arrange another vehicle for supply of the milk. He then approached the OP No.1 and told them the complaint about the vehicle then O.P. No.1 refer the complainant to the Pasco Motors to take the vehicle to that registered and recognize service provider of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to Pasco Motors on 5.3.2018 and they made some improvisations with the engine of the vehicle and sent back the complainant. But the problem of the vehicle did not stop and the complainant kept on suffering due to the manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle. It is further stated that on 13.3.2018, the complainant approached the O.P. No.1 who again refer the complainant to the Pasco Motors and he again took the vehicle to the Pasco Motors, they again made some improvisations but the problem did not end the manufacturing defect in the engine was as it was earlier. The mechanics of the O.P. No.1 had many times to come to repair the engine other than 5.3.2018 & 13.3.2018 but the defect in the engine was not cured. The complainant many time requested the O.Ps. that as there is manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle, so the new vehicle should be given to the complainant and the old vehicle should be taken back by the O.Ps, but the O.Ps. are not hearing to the grievance of the complainant and has not replacing the vehicle in question. Hence, this complaint.    

 3.   On notice, O.Ps. No.1 & 2 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Ld Forum; that the O.Ps. has conducted the fair trade practice and has always given satisfactory reply and services to the complainant; that the complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass and humiliate the O.Ps. On merits, it is stated that the problem occurred due to the act and conduct of the complainant. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the answering O.P. but complainant had not got serviced the vehicle from the answering O.P. It is mandatory for the owner of the vehicle to get the benefits of the guarantee/warrantee to comply with the norms of the company. But the complainant has not got serviced his vehicle from the answering O.P. after its purchase. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.     

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.    

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. SS Johal argued that Mehma Singh purchased TATA ACE JIP BS-IV  bearing registration No.PB-65-AR-6617 from the O.P. No.1 on 11.12.2017 against a sum of Rs.2,47,000/-. After about two months from the date of purchase the purchased vehicle started creating trouble due to manufacturing defect in the engine. The complainant brought into the notice of OP No.1 who directed the complainant to approach against any of the defect to the Pasco Motors. Then on 5.3.2018, complainant approached the Pasco Motors, who stated that there is manufacturing defect again approached on 13.3.2018 to OP No.1 who referring to the Pasco Motors and again Pasco Motors stated manufacturing defect. So due to the manufacturing defect complainant is suffering, the complaint be allowed. OP be directed to replace the vehicle or to refund the price with cost.

7.    Sh. Gurpreet Saini, counsel for Ops argued that so the sale purchase of the vehicle in question is concern i.e. admitted. But complainant not produced on file any document to prove firstly qua the manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. Moreso no document placed on file qua the repair by Pasco Motors. Lastly prayed that complaint is without merit and same be dismissed.

8.    Complainant purchased the vehicle from the O.Ps. which is admitted. The payment was made vide bill dated 11.12.2017 and the vehicle is within warranty. Complainant pointed out the defect so complaint is maintainable and it is a consumer dispute.

9.    Coming to the controversy whether complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. or not. The sale purchase of the vehicle is admitted and the vehicle is bearing registration No.PB-65-AR-6617. Ex.C1 is the RC, Ex.C2 sale certificate, Ex.C3 invoice qua price, Ex.C4 certificate issued by the Pollution authority, Ex.C5 photocopy of the policy and then Ex.C6 photocopy of the temporary certificate of registration. Beside this there is nothing on the file. Whereas, to rebut the complainant version O.P. not placed on file any documents.

10.  Complainant has come forward with the plea qua the manufacturing defect as well as deficiency in service. The Forum after going through the pleadings, arguments and after going through the documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that complainant remain fail in proving any of the manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. So complaint is without merit. However, it is made clear if the complainant comes to the O.Ps at any time qua functioning of the vehicle then O.Ps are directed to entertain as well as made necessary repair according to the terms and conditions of the warranty/insurance policy.

11.       In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed,   leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .18.07.2018                          PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER