Haryana

Ambala

CC/290/2017

Wing Commander Deepak Datta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chevrolet Sales India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. Bajwa

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No : 290 of 2017

        Date of Institution    : 08.08.2017

          Date of Decision       : 03.10.2018

 

Wing Commander Deepak Datta Room No.1, Jaguar, Air Force Officer Mess, Mall Road, Ambala Cant-133001.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, Regd. Office Block-B Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol- 389351, District Manchmahals, Gujrat, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Stanley Massey, Customer Assistance Centre Chevrolet Sales India, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory.
3. M/s Oberoi Automobile (P) Ltd. Near Petrol Pump, Chota Khuda, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        DR.SUSHMA GARG, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. J.S.Bajwa, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh.Harjot Singh, Adv. for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

                        Sh.Nikhil Handa, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased a Chevrolet Bat Car from OP No.3 in the year 2015. The car has only run 20000 Kms and all its five wheels were worn out. The complainant got his car checked from the workshop of OPs and came to know that its spindles are defective, resulted early wearing out of the tyres within such a short span. He informed the OP No.2 and also wrote a letter on dated 08.09.2016 but no action has been taken. He further wrote a letter to Op No.2 and copy thereof was also sent to Op No.1. In the reply thereto it was intimated to complainant that Op No.3 will assist in getting the needful done but till today nothing fruitful has been done. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.                                 On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action etc.  The vehicle in question is in warranty condition but as per clause No.5 the parts have been covered by other warranty condition in sub clause b it has been written that tyres of the vehicle in question are covered by tyre manufacturer and relevant portion of same is reproduced as under:

b. Tyres: This warranty is covered by the tyre manufacturer. The coverage by the tyre manufacturer. The coverage period is one year. Please check with your Chevrolet retailer for details.

 

The OP No.1 is a manufacturer of the vehicle in question and he cannot be dragged to the present litigation until unless there is some manufacturing defect and the alleged grouse of wearing of tyres cannot be addressed and redressed as manufacturing defect. There is no expert evidence as well as documentary evidence to show that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. If the vehicle in question had some manufacturing defect in that case it was not possible for the vehicle in question even to cross 100 Kilometers. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Op No.2 adopted the reply filed by the Op No.1 vide separate statement dated 16.01.2018.

3.                                 OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that present complaint is not maintainable as on the request of the complainant spindles of the car were changed being in warranty period but the tyres were not changed as there was no warranty/guarantee from the company. The complainant being the officer of Air Force threatened the officials of Op No.3 that he would complained the matter to higher authorities. The OP No.3 is working as per the instructions of the company and cannot go beyond the rules and instructions of the company. The averments made in the complaint have been made to mislead the Forum as it has been dragged in the uncalled and unnecessary litigation. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit AnnexureR-1/A, Annexure R3/A, documents Annexure R1 and Annexure R2.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                     Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the above said vehicle from Op No.3. The complainant has come with the plea that all the five wheels of the car got worn due to problem in spindle, which were changed and the Ops did not change the tyres in question despite being in warranty. On the other hand, the OPs have come with the plea that the spindles of the car were changed being in warranty period and the tyres were not changed as there was no guarantee/warrantee from the OPs which had already been expired. Perusal of the reply filed by the Op No.3 reveals that the complainant had purchased the car in question in January, 2015 and as per service manual Column 5 i.e. part covered by other warranty condition the warranty regarding tyres was for one year  by the manufacturer. The complainant has alleged that the tyres in question become defective due to spindle defect and sent the mail to the OPs on 05.05.2016 (Annexure C1) and this fact shows when the complainant had lodged complaint regarding tyres problem the warranty period had expired and there is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever lodged any complaint regarding defect in the tyres during the warranty period. The complainant has even not placed on record any expert evidence to show that as to on which date the spindles  got out of order and further resulted into damage of tyres. It is strange that the complainant remained mum for a longer period and on 05.05.2016 lodged the complaint regarding spindle and tyres problem when the vehicle had run more than 15000 KMs. Moreover, in the present complaint it appears that the complainant has intentionally not mentioned the date of purchase of vehicle to avail the warranty period qua any defect in the vehicle or any part thereof.

                                    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has failed to prove his case by way of leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 03.10.2018                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                                                                 MEMBER

 

 

 

(DR.SUSHMA GARG)

                                                                                        MEMBER