DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 588

 Instituted on:   18.11.2019 

                                                                         Decided on:      12.12.2023

Suman Rani  wife  of Naveen Kumar resident of  Mohan Nagar, Ward No.11, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur 148026.       

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Dhaliwal Autos, Near PNB Bank, Patiala Road, Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur  through its Proprietor 148026.

2.     TVS Motor Company Limited P.B.No.4, Harita, Hosur-635, Tamil Nadu, India through its authorized Signatory 635109.

….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                           : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri S.K.Hareri Advocate              

For the  OP no.1       : Shri H.S.Chadda Advocate.

For  the OP no.2       ; Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The brief facts of the case are that  the complainant purchased a TVS Jupiter Classic (BSIV) DISC on 07.11.2018 from OP no.1. On the advice of Ops, the complainant regularly doing the service of the vehicle from the agency of the Ops but the Ops not entered the entry in the service book. At the time of first service, the OP told the complainant that the filter of the vehicle is not working properly.  During second service of the vehicle, the OP told the complainant that the engine of the vehicle was damaged and OP illegally demanded of Rs.4500/- for repair of the vehicle. The complainant told  the OP that the vehicle is under warranty so you should replace it but the Ops refused to do so and lastly  prayed  that the Ops may kindly be  replaced the vehicle  in question  with new one and also returned the whole amount which was deposited by the complainant in installments alongwith @18% interest and Rs.25000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written version separately. In reply OP no.1 taking preliminary objections  that the complainant concealed material facts from this Commission and   the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, OPno.1  admitted to the extent that one TVS Jupiter was purchased by  complainant  on 07.11.2018.  It is denied  that  the entry not made  as alleged by the complainant in the service book. It is also denied  by the OPno.1 that the filter of the vehicle is not working . The true facts of the complaint are that  the complainant approached the OP no.1  in the month of August 2019 regarding the complaint of noise in  the engine and the complainant asked the OP no.1 what expenses will repair to prepare the vehicle and OP no.1 told  that the expenses will only be decided after opening the vehicle and said to the complainant to wait for few  days and will inform later on. The complainant left the vehicle  in the agency and thereafter complainant  never came to the agency and also not picked the vehicle and the vehicle is still lying in the agency of OPno.1.  The  OP no.1  requested  the complainant  a number  of times to pick her vehicle from the agency or to tell the OP no.1whether repairs work  needs to be done or not but    the complainant started  threatening to the OP no.1  and stated that she will take new vehicle instead of  the above mentioned vehicle in question. The mechanic of the agency of the Op no.1 never conducted any service of the vehicle in question. The Op no.1 never demanded any amount to repair of the vehicle. When the vehicle did not get repair the question  to demand the amount for repairing does not arise at all. The Op no.1 duly replied the legal notice of the complainant.  As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op no.1. Lastly the Ops prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

3.             Reply  of OPno.2 taking preliminary objections  that  the complaint is false, incorrect and filed with malafide intention.  There is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2. The complainant alleging that the engine noise of the vehicle  after thorough  investigation of the vehicle it was found that there was no service record of the vehicle. Parawise reply of OP no.2 pleaded that as per record of OPno.2  the complainant purchased the said vehicle on 07.11.2018.  It is specifically denied that the  complainant was assured for replacement of the vehicle in the event,  there is any defect in the vehicle. Lastly  the OP no.2 prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

4.             In support of her case the complainant tendered into evidence  Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and self attested  affidavit Ex.C-17 and closed evidence.

5.             On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party  no.1 has produced  documents i.e  Ex.Op1/1 self attested affidavit  and  other documents  Ex.Op1/2  to Ex.OP1/4 and  closed evidence. Similarly, OP no.2 has tendered  affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and some other documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/3 and closed evidence.    

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

6.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by him in his prayer or  not?

7.             It is not disputed that the complainant purchased vehicle in question from OP no.1 on 07.11.2018.  The registration number of the vehicle is PB-84-1712.  No doubt it is not disputed that the complainant approached  the OP no.1 in the month of August 2019 with regard to noise in engine of the vehicle in question.  It transpires from the perusal of Ex.C-1 delivery challan issued by OP no.1 to the complainant on 07-11-2018.  Further, the complainant pleaded in the complaint in para 3 (b) that the complainant regularly doing the service of the vehicle in question  from the agency of the Ops but  Op no.1 did not enter the entry in the service book. At the time of first service,  the OP no.1 told the complainant that the filter of the vehicle in question is not working properly.  Further, complainant pleaded in para no.3 (c )  that the mechanic of the Ops conducted the Second service of the vehicle and told that complainant  that the engine of the vehicle was damaged. On the other hand, OP no.1 mentioned in reply para no.3 (c)  that the complainant approached the OP no.1 in the month of August 2019  regarding the noise problem in  engine of the vehicle. Trace out the veracity of truth, this Commission examined minutely the evidence on record produced by both parties. From the perusal of Ex.OP1/2 Job card information mentioned as “  the customer name Sat Pal Singh”. The Commission  has  considered view that from the perusal of head note of complaint  Sat Pal Singh has no concern as necessary party. On page no.2 and 3 of Ex.OP1/2 mentioned as  “ no data to display”.   From the perusal of  Ops official record with regard to how many services of the vehicle were conducted by the Ops not proved.  Moreover, the complainant did not produce any counter part of the service receipt of the vehicle  in question. As per Ex.OP1/3  the vehicle meter reading was noted as 20573 mileage.  Further, this Commission has gone  through the terms and conditions of the vehicle  Ex.OP1/4.  From  the perusal of warranty conditions it is mentioned as “ the list of parts of engine not covered under warranty “.  It is duty of the complainant to prove her case , weather any specific defect exist in the engine or note ? However, the complainant failed to produce any technical expert in support of her evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.

8.             This Commission  has the considered view  that the complainant approached  the OP no.1 in the month of August 2019. As per reply of OP no.1 on merits in para number 3 ( c) also admitted this factum that  the vehicle  was produced by the complainant  with the service centre of OP no.1. We feel that the vehicle was produced by complainant after nine month from the date of purchase of the vehicle to the service centre of OP no.1. From this angel, as no hesitation  to hold that

the complainant visited the service centre within the warranty period. In these peculiar  circumstances, the OP no.1 is liable  to provide  the service to the complainant. It is writ large on the file that this is a fit case to redress  the grievance of the aggrieved consumer. 

9.             Resultantly, keeping  in view of the  facts and  circumstances  of the  complaint  in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record, we partly  allow  the complaint  and direct  the OP no.1 to repair the vehicle properly and change  any defective part, if any, free of charge of the vehicle in question. Before handing over the vehicle to the complainant  OP no.1 makes ensure the vehicle is fit for in roadworthy condition. Further,  the Op no.1 is directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. This  order be complied with by OPs within 45 days  from the  receipt of copy  of this order.    

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance

                Announced.

                December 12,  2023

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President

BBS/-