Haryana

StateCommission

A/582/2015

SOURABH DIXIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHERVOLET SALES INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT RANA

21 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 582 of 2015

Date of Institution:10.07.2015       Date of Decision: 21.01.2016

Sourabh Dixit R/o B-71, Bhagat Singh Colony, Near Bohra Public
School, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. The Managing Director, Chervolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estte, Halol 389351, District Panchmahals, Gujrat, India.
2. The Manager, Regent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 14/3, Mathura road,Faridabad-121003, Haryana.

…..Respondents

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Rana, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

Appeal No.591 of 2015

Date of institution:- 07.07.2015/ 15.07.2015

Date of Decision:- 21.01.2016

Regent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 14/3, Mathura road, Faridabad-121003 through its Authorised representative.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Sourabh Dixit R/o B-71, Bhagat Singh Colony, Near Bohra Public School, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004, Haryana.

3. Chervolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol 389351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat, through its Managing Director.

…..Respondents

Present:-    Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Rohit Rana, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.582 of 2015 and 591 of 2015 will be disposed off as abovesaid appeals are preferred against the order dated 08.06.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased  Chevrolet spark LT with sequential CNG kit from opposite party No.2 (O.P.No.2) against payment of Rs.4,55,800/- on 11.11.2012.    After four months of purchase when he started using air conditioner car started giving problem. At the speed of 50-60 kmph with AC on the car used to stop.  He approached O.P.No.2 to solve the problem, but, to no use.  O.P.No.2 repeatedly asked him to convert to conventional/normal CNG system because sequential CNG kit was not functioning properly, but, he was willing to use the sequential CNG Kit. O.P be directed to refund the price of the car besides other compensation as mentioned in the complaint.

3.      O.P.No.1 controverted his averments and alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the car.  The company (O.P.No.1) sold the car running on the petrol and not on any type of CNG.  If complainant got sequential CNG kit fitted, it was not responsible for any problem.  Due to change in system warranty could not be enforced. 

4.      O.P.No.2 alleged that complainant purchased spark car of petrol version with complete knowledge. He himself showed his desire to install sequential kit, which was against the warranty, but, he insisted for the same.  He was told that it did not install any sequential kit on any spark car and introduced him (complainant) with Mr. Hemant  independent CNG kit supplier and installer. It did not advise the installation of sequential kit.  The car was performing well on the petrol.  The installer of CNG kit was advising complainant from the day one to install normal CNG kit, but, he was insisting on sequential kit. Complainant also  visited so many road side workshops and the problem worsened. They were ready to replace the same, but, complainant was insisting to remove the problem. Objections about non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, territorial jurisdiction, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 08.06.2015 and directed as under:-

“The complaint is allowed to the extent that opposite  party no.2 is directed to pay the price of the sequential CNG kit to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order.  Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant as well as O.P.No.2 have preferred these appeals.

7.      It is alleged by O.P.No.2 that sequential CNG kit was installed as per request of the complainant.  CNG kit supplier was always ready to replace the same.  He was advised to get conventional CNG kit installed instead of sequential, but, he did not agree. 

8.      It is alleged by the complainant that he was misguided by O.P.No.2 and as per assurance he got the sequential CNG fitted. The car is not running properly so O.Ps. be directed to replace the car with sequential CNG kit or refund the sale price.

9.      Arguments heard. File perused.

10.    Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the sequential CNG kit was fitted by O.P.No.2 which is clear from the perusal of the receipt.  Invoice Ex.CW1/A Rs.62,000/- were charged by O.P.No.2 on account of fitting CNG kit.  On the basis of this invoice registration certificate Ex.CW1/B was issued wherein fuel used petrol/CNG clearly mentioned. So O.P.No.2 cannot allege that the car was not fitted with CNG by it. After four months of purchase when he started using AC.  The car started giving problem and he immediately informed O.P.No.2, which is clear from the perusal of E-mails Ex.CW1/C.  O.P.No.2 asked him to approach different workshops as mentioned in Ex.CW1/D for removing the problem but to no use.  In this way the fault lies with O.Ps. and they be directed to replace the car with sequential CNG kit.

11.    On the other hand counsel for the O.P.No.2 argued that Spark  LT car run on petrol was sold to the complainant.  As per his request sequential kit was fitted which was purchased by him from one Hemant Goyal.  No assurance was given by it about any type of smooth running with CNG kit. Rather he was advised to get normal CNG kit fitted, but to no use.  The CNG kit was set by Mr. Charan and he was responsible for the problem ,but, is not implemented as a party in the complaint.  There is no deficiency in service on it’s part and it cannot be permitted to replace the kit. 

12.    There is no doubt that the complainant purchased Spark LT car being run on petrol. There is no evidence on the file about manufacturing defect. So O.P.No.1 was rightly absolved for any type of liability.  The main dispute is about the run on CNG kit. As per averments of the complainant it is clear that he wanted to use the sequential CNG kit in this car.  He has miserably failed to show that the O.P.No.2 misguided or asked him to have sequential kit.  Rather Ex.RW2/B clearly show that complainant was willing to use sequential CNG kit only. No doubt sequential CNG kit is creating problem which is clear from the perusal of Ex.CW1/C. Vide Ex. CW1/D complainant was asked to approach Mr. Hemant Goyal about removing this defect, but, could not be removed despite several visits.  O.P. offered with the replacement of the kit which is clear from the perusal of Ex.R2/B. When CNG kit is creating problem O.P.No.2 can only be asked to replace the same,  because it has charged Rs.60,000/- from the complainant for this purpose.  When there is no other defect in the car, O.Ps. cannot be asked to replace the same.  The learned District Forum has rightly ordered to pay the price of the sequential kit to the complainant.  When complainant did not purchase the sequential kit from Hemant Goyal he cannot be forced to go into litigation with him.  So argument of both the parties cannot be accepted.  The findings  of learned district forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly, both the appeals fail and they are hereby dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.591 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

14.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.582 of 2015 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.591 of 2015.

January 21st, 2016                Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K.Bishnoi,                                                             Member                                  Judicial ember                                                           Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench               

S.K.