Haryana

StateCommission

A/995/2016

DHEERAJ YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIAMOND AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ MEHTA

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 995 of 2016

Date of Institution: 20.10.2016

Date of Decision : 23.11.2016

 

Dheeraj Yadav son of Sh. Jaswant Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Mundi, Tehsil and District Rewari (Haryana).

                                                                             Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

 

1.      Diamond Automobiles Private Limited, Opposite Vidyut Nagar, Delhi Road, Hisar through its proprietor.

2.      Skoda Auto India, A-1/1, MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra Aurangabad (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents- Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Rakesh Nuniwal, Advocate

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J,(ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated September 15^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.      On October 23^rd, 2011 Dheeraj Yadav-complainant purchased a car Skoda make, bearing registration No.HR36R-2151 from Diamond Automobiles Private Limited-opposite party No.1 for Rs.6,93,447/-.  The car was manufactured by Skoda Auto India-opposite party No.2.   The car developed some defects.  The opposite parties failed to rectify the defects.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.  

3.      The Opposite parties, in their written version, denied the averments of the complaint and took various preliminary objections viz. the complaint was not maintainable; the complainant concealed true and material facts and mis-joinder of necessary parties.  During the warranty period, the car met with accidents and got repaired from Giriraj Auto (JSB), Gurgaon.  The accidental damages were not covered under the warranty.  On May 18^th, 2012, the complainant brought his car to the opposite party No.1 with the complaint of starting.  The opposite party No.1 informed the opposite party No.2, who directed the opposite party No.1 to replace required parts of the car.   On July 27^th, 2012 the complainant took the delivery of the car.  The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 with the problem of ‘Glow Plug Light Blinks’.  After diagnosing, it was found that the problem occurred due to bad fuel quality.  The fuel injection was changed.  The complainant refused to take the delivery of the car.  The opposite party No.1 on the instructions of opposite party No.2 sent the sample of fuel for lab testing to SGS India Private Limited.  In the test, it was reported that the fuel was found to be adulterated and rejected the warranty claim of complainant.  On November 03^rd, 2012, the complainant paid Rs.57,000/- against Rs.58,241/- to the opposite party No.1 after deducting the share of opposite parties.  He also signed the satisfaction note.    

4.      The complainant purchased the car from opposite party No.1.  During the warranty period, that is, on December 07^th, 2011, December 24^th, 2011, February 22^nd, 2012, March 26^th, 2012 and May 10^th, 2012 the car met with accidents and repaired from Giriraj Auto (JSB), Gurgaon.  The complainant got his car repaired for accidental damages, which was of course not covered under the warranty.  The complainant could not allege that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.  The defects alleged by the complainant were duly rectified by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties rather gave up their share in the bill paid by the complainant to keep the customer satisfaction.  It was the fault of the complainant not to take care his car.  Thus, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  The appeal is also dismissed.         

 

Announced 23.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK