Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/886

Ramesh Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada Motors - Opp.Party(s)

19 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                          C.C.No.886 of 29.11.2013

                                                          Date of Decision: 19.08.2014

Ramesh Lal son of Rallu Ram, r/o H.No.9946, Street No.12, New Subhash Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

 

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1.Dada Motors Private Limited, Ludhiana Registered Dealer Tata Motors Limited through owner, Savitri-1, Dholewal, G.T.Road, Ludhiana.

2. Dada Motors Private Limited, Ludhiana, Registered Dealer Tata Motors Limited through its Manager.

                                                                   …             Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Quorum     Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Smt.Priti Malhotra, Member.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                                     

Present:      Sh.Ankur Pal, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

 

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Ramesh Lal(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Dada Motors Private Limited, Ludhiana and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the car of the complainant or to replace the engine of the same besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a vehicle make Tata Magic I.R.I.S. bearing chassis No.MAT491106CJN45704 having engine No.600WSZL8062422 from the Ops which bears the registration No.PB-10-DS-9951 and the complainant paid the entire sale price of the vehicle to the Ops. After few days of the purchase of said vehicle, the engine of the said vehicle giving noise and the said vehicle also discharging huge smoking and engine oil was also decreasing and the pickup of the vehicle also less and the vehicle used to be very hot. The complainant contacted the Ops but the Ops did not listen anything and lingered the matter on one pretext of the others. On repeated visits made by the complainant, Ops got repaired the engine of the car of the complainant on 23.8.2013 vide invoice No.DadaMo-LS-1314-05075 in their workshop but the problem remained persisted and the vehicle is still facing with the same problem and even the steering rod of the vehicle is also jammed and the vehicle used to be un-geared itself and even its shocker was also leaked. Further, it is averred that the Ops have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant despite receiving the entire sale price of the vehicle. Despite repeated visits made by the complainant to the Ops to repair, the defect in the vehicle, Ops failed to do the same, due to which, the complainant has suffered undue harassment and humiliation and mental tension and agony at the hands of the Ops. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, they took up certain preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering Ops as no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering Ops as the answering Ops have not committed any wrong nor there is any deficiency in service on their part; the allegations raised in the complaint are totally false, frivolous and vexatious having no iota of truth therein, rather the same has been filed only to extort money from the answering Ops by blackmailing them without any fault on its part; the answering Ops have been unnecessarily dragged by the complainant in the present complaint. Further, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant has raised false allegations as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and the same has been driven by the complainant upto 29478 Kms till 23.8.2013 when its engine was repaired by the answering Ops from the date of its purchase. Had there been any defect, it could not have driven safely to such an extent. Whenever, the complainant approached the answering Ops for any type of service of the vehicle, the same was repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and whichever part was to be changed under the warranty, the same was changed under warranty. The engine of the complainant was also repaired under warranty on 23.8.2013 but the complainant want to get his engine replaced, hence he filed this false and frivolous complaint and this fact is clear from the service history of the vehicle that the complainant on 21.8.2013, approached the Cargo Motors and Goyal Auto Zone on 28.1.2014 and the complainant never alleges high engine vibrations, excessive smoke and overheating. The complainant alleges the started problem, poor pickup of the vehicle on 21.12.2013 at Cargo Motors but Cargo Motors found no problem in this regard and only door handle was renewed after that the Goyal Auto Zone also, the complainant never alleges the poor pickup and high engine vibrations and excessive smoke from the engine or over-heating and this clearly shows that the engine of the vehicle of the complainant was fully repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by the answering Ops and the driver of the complainant also signed a satisfaction note in this regard on 21.11.2013. Further, took the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the vehicle in question is used by the complainant for commercial purpose and the same is not used by the complainant himself and the same is driven by the driver employed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant does not come under the category of Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection  Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties as the complainant failed to implead the manufacturer Tata Motors as necessary party. On merits, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to support the case of the complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit EX.CA2 of Sh.Satnam Singh, who is the relative of the complainant, in which, he has also supported the case of the complainant by reiterated the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.

5.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Indermohan Pal Singh, its Law Officer, in which, she has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OPs has placed on record the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the documents on the file very carefully.

7.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is a proved fact on record that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Tata Magic I.R.I.S. bearing registration No.PB-10-DS-9951 from the Ops for a valid sale consideration. Further, it is a proved fact on record that the vehicle of the complainant was giving trouble in its smooth running after few days of its purchase and the complainant has lodged complaint with the Ops time and again. It is also a proved on the record from the job cards which have been placed on record by both the parties that the vehicle suffers from problems regarding steering noisy, engine noise level high, engine vibrations high, fuel leakage, excessive smoke, engine over-heating, clutch hard, poor pickup etc. Further, it is an admitted fact on record that engine of the vehicle in question was overhauled by the Ops and repaired under warranty on 23.8.2013.

8.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the vehicle in question is still not running smoothly and engine of the vehicle is giving noise and sucking engine oil and gear box of the vehicle is also not proper condition which creates trouble in the working of the vehicle and further, there are certain other problems in the vehicle. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has contended that at the request of the complainant, the engine of the vehicle was repaired without any costs and all the times, free repairing services have been provided to the complainant as and when, the vehicle of the complainant required any repair. But now the complainant has filed this false complaint.

9.                From the evidence of the parties, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle in question is not suffering from any problems as referred above. So, it is a well settled principle of law that it is obligation of the manufacturer/dealer to provide the proper service to the customer like complainant. Though, the complainant has sought relief of replacement of the vehicle or replacement of the engine of the same. However, he has not placed on record any opinion of the automobile expert, from which, it could be presumed that the vehicle in question needs complete replacement or replacement of the engine due to any manufacturing defect. So, the complainant cannot seek relief qua the replacement of the vehicle. However, the complainant appears to be entitled for the repair of the vehicle, for which, the Ops are under obligation to carry out the necessary repair of the vehicle of the complainant without any costs.

10.               In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and as a result, direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the engine assembly and gear box of the vehicle of the complainant and other parts of the same without any costs even by replacement of any parts and to make the vehicle of the complainant smooth roadworthy and without any noise to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Further, Ops are directed to  pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                   (Sat Paul Garg)    (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                      Member              President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:19.08.2014

Gurpreet Sharma.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ramesh Lal vs. Dada Motors Private Limited

 

19.08.2014

 

Present:      Sh.Ankur Pal, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OPs.

 

                    Written arguments not filed. Arguments have been heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

 (Priti Malhotra)       (Sat Paul Garg)          (R.L. Ahuja)

                      Member                    Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

on 19.08.2014