Punjab

Moga

CC/17/36

Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Munish Majithia

19 Jul 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 36 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 06.04.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 19.07.2017 

 

Charanjit Singh, aged about 38 years s/o Surjit Singh r/o near Dera Swami Kashipuri, Badhni Kalan, Rau Ke Road, Badhni Kalan, District Moga.

 

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, opposite Bus Stand Moga, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. Savitri Complex- 1, G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Munish Majithia, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law officer for opposite parties.  

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, opposite Bus Stand Moga, through its Branch Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to hand over the key of car bearing no.PB-29-X-2585, Tata Vehicle. T/Xenon and to remove the defect in the said vehicle. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant and to grant any other relief which this Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle car no.PB-29X-2585, Tata Vehicle T/xenon for a sum of Rs.6,83,658/- on 04.08.2016. At the time of delivery one key of said vehicle was handed over to complainant and it was promised that as the second key of said vehicle is not available, however the same will be handed over to complainant as soon as will be traced out. After some days of its purchase, complainant requested the concerned Manager of Dada Motors i.e. opposite party no.1 on his mobile no.98769-19393 and he admitted that second key has been lost and same has not been traced out and will be handed over as soon as same is found. The complainant also noticed that there was a defect in the engine of said vehicle and mobile oil used to leak from the engine. The complainant requested the concerned manager of opposite party no.1 to get the said defect removed and the complainant took the vehicle to their office/workshop several times, but to no effect. The complainant requested the opposite parties a number of times to hand over the second key of the vehicle to him, but they failed to do so. The complainant was being harassed unnecessarily for his no fault. The action of the opposite parties is unconstitutional and fundamental principles of judicial procedure and due to the act of opposite parties complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law officer and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is absolutely false frivolous and vexatious and has been filed only to harass the opposite parties without any fault on its part; that the allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint are absolutely false, having no reality. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true facts from this forum. The true facts are that the second key of the vehicle has been delivered to the complainant on 5.8.2017, when he purchased the vehicle. The copy of the vehicle delivery– cum- Gate Pass clearly shows that the Tool Kit, Battery Card, Owner's manual and free service coupon book, set of duplicate keys, spare wheel were delivered to the complainant and the same was duly signed by the complainant. All these facts clearly shows that the complainant is misusing and abusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and is trying to extract money from opposite parties; that as the vehicle in question is commercial vehicle and the same is purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, as such the complainant is not consumer and complaint of the complainant may be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Xenon from opposite parties. It is wrong that at the time of delivery one key of the vehicle was handed over to complainant. It is wrong that after some days of purchase complainant requested the concerned Manager of opposite parties on mobile number. It is wrong that he admitted that second key has been lost and the same will be handed over as soon as the same is found. It is wrong and denied that there is defect in the engine of vehicle and the mobile oil used to leak from the engine. All the allegations are false and concocted one as the complainant has only once visited the answering opposite parties since he purchased the vehicle. The service history of the vehicle clearly shows that he only visited on 18.08.2016 regarding some electrical problem in the vehicle and the same was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1, Compact Disc Ex.C-2 and copies of documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of opposite parties tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-1, 2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1, 2/2 to Ex.OP-1, 2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that on 04.08.2016, he purchased a vehicle Tata Xenon from opposite parties. At the time of delivery only one key of the said vehicle was handed over to the complainant and it was promised that second key of the vehicle will be handed over as soon as the same is traced out. After purchase of the vehicle, the complainant requested the opposite parties a number of time to hand over the second key of the vehicle, but every time they assured that key is not traceable and when it will be found, it will be delivered to complainant, but till today they did not supply second key. The engine of the said vehicle also defective as the mobile oil used to leak from the engine. The complainant requested the opposite parties many a times to remove the defect in the engine, but they also failed to remove the defect. These acts on the part of opposite parties, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

8.                On the other hand, opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from them, but they denied that at the time of delivery of vehicle only one key of the vehicle was provided to complainant. They submitted that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, they handed over all the documents and other items like Tool Kit, Battery Card, Owner's manual and free service coupon book, set of duplicate keys, spare wheel to the complainant. He never approached them for delivery of second key, as it was already handed over to him at the time of delivery of vehicle. They further submitted that there is no defect in the engine of the vehicle. He is levelling false allegations against the opposite parties. He never visited the opposite parties with any complaint regarding his vehicle. The service history of the vehicle shows that the complainant only visited on 18.08.2016 regarding some electric problem in the vehicle and the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. After that the complainant never approached to them even for periodically services. Now, he filed the present complaint only with malafide intention to harass the opposite parties and the same may be dismissed.

9.                The allegations of the complainant is that at the time of delivery of vehicle, the opposite parties handed over one key of the vehicle and the second key was not handed over to him, as the same was not traceable. At that time opposite parties promised that it will be delivered to complainant as soon as it is found. But till today, they have not delivered the second key. On the other hand, opposite parties submitted that they delivered the second key to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle, but they failed to prove that they ever delivered second key of the vehicle to the complainant. As far as the question regarding the defect in the engine, the opposite parties are bound to repair the same and to remove the defect in the vehicle of the complainant within warranty period and they cannot escape from their liability and cannot deny to repair the vehicle in warranty period. Hence in these circumstances, the present complaint is hereby allowed and opposite parties are directed to deliver the duplicate key of the vehicle in question to complainant and also to repair the vehicle by removing the defect in the engine to the satisfaction of the complainant free of costs under warranty conditions. Further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4000/-(four thousand only) as compensation as well as litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 19.07.2017

                                                (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                        Member                                President