Delhi

East Delhi

CC/682/2014

GHANSHYAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.D. MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.    682 /2014                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution            01/08/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved on             02/11/2016

                                                                                                        Date of Order                     03/11/2016               

In matter of

Mr Ghanshyam Pandey, adult

S/o   Sh Nanku Prasad Pandey    

R/o- 372, plot no. 1350, GF,

Gali no. 1, BLK station,  

Prem Nagar, Phase 1, Delhi 110041 ……………..…………….Complainant                                                                    

                                                                           

                                                                              Vs

M/s DD Motors  

A-1, Udhog Vihar,    

New Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi,

New Delhi 110041……………………………………………………….Respondent

 

Complainant’s Advocate…………………………………Rajesh Sharma  

Opponent ………………………………………………………Rajiv Dhir-AR

 

Quorum                                                    Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                        

                  

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                   

 

Complainant purchased a Maruti Swift, a new car having registration no. DL8CU9419, from OP on 06/11/2013 marked as CW1/1 as RC of the vehicle. The anti rust coating was done on 06/11/2013, which had anti perforation warranty up to 05/11/2018 vide warranty card no. 276920, marked here as CW1/2. The paid service of vehicle was taken on 29/07/2014 for Rs 8851/ marked as CW1/3.

Complainant stated that after service of the car, he parked car in front of his house and went to his village. After return, he found that his car had fire due to short circuit, so he made police complaint vide DD no. 31PP on dated 30/07/2014 at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi under section 427 IPC, marked as CW1/4.

Thereafter, he visited OP and told that due to your negligence, short circuit happened. OP did not do anything, but misbehaved.

Complainant submitted all required documents for claim with OP, but did not settle the claim. So, he filed this complaint claiming replacement of his vehicle or refund the amount paid with compensation for harassment of Rs 4,50,000/- and litigation charges RS 25,000/-.

Notice was served. OP submitted written statement denying all the alleged allegations against him.  It was submitted that the OP was maintaining service record of the said vehicle and after every service, complainant was satisfied and by seeing the annexed job sheet marked as Annexure A showed that no electric work was done and all other routine service was done and parts were changed. So, no alleged negligence could be attributed to OP.  It was also stated that vehicle had run 8000 KM ie more than 3000KM over run. Similarly in all services, vehicle had rum over more than estimated kilometers. OP stated that for all unforeseen incidents, insurance was the right step and not the OP, as insurance was not made a party, so OP could not held liable for any unforeseen accidents. More so, complainant had stated that his car was parked outside his house and he had gone out with his family, so it could not be ascertained the exact reason of fire which could result from short-circuit in case of switched off car. Thus, the facts about fire were wrong and no related evidence was annexed to prove the cause of fire.

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and OP had also filed its evidence on affidavit. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.  

 We analyzed all the facts and evidences on record; it was evident that the complainant had not put up any concrete evidence which could prove deficiency in service which led fire in the car. Complainant had valid insurance, but did not make necessary party to claim alleged damages. Therefore, all the allegations put in the complaint against OP could not be proved by complainant on a single concrete evidence.    

Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same deserve to be dismissed, so complaint is dismissed without cost.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the rules and the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                               (Dr) P N Tiwari            Member                                                                                                                    Member

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                         President