Haryana

Ambala

CC/221/2017

Ram Saran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eakansh Wheels - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

        Complaint Case No. : 221 of 2017

       Date of Institution    : 04.07.2017

              Date of Decision      :  06.08.2018

 

Ram Saran son of Shri Mukhtiar Singh resident of village Mukandpur Tehsil Naraingarh District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.Eakansh Wheels, through its Manager, Near Petrol Pump, Kala Amb Road, Naraingarh District Ambala.

2.M/s Eakansh Wheels through its Manager/authorized signatory KM Stone No.125, Village Tepla, State Highway No.5 Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

3.Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Manager, Plot no.1, Phase III, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana).

           

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                                               

Present:          Sh.Harpreet Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh.U.S.Chauhan, Adv. for OP Nos.1 & 2.

                        Sh.Keshav Sharma, Adv. for OP No.3.                 

 

ORDER:

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased Alto K-10 bearing engine No.K10BN2025803 chasis No.MA3EZDE1S00327883 on 17.03.2017 from OP No.1 for a sum o Rs.3,47,491/- and used the same as per the instructions  but the car got stopped due to overheat on 07.04.2017. The complainant brought the same to OP No.2 vide job card No.JC17000344 and a sum of Rs.350/- was received by OP No.2 on 08.04.2017 and also received a sum of Rs.1981/- and Rs.485/- on 08.04.2017 and also received a sum of Rs.8441/-. Thereafter the complainant started using the car but on 10.04.2017 the car again stopped working due to overheat. OP No.2 removed the defect but the same still exists in the car, therefore, the complainant has to arrange a taxi to provide treatment to his mother from Fortis Hospital Mohali and the said defect could not be removed by the OP No.2 inspite of their best efforts.  The complainant requested the OPs either to exchange the car or to refund the price thereof but to no avail despite the fact that there was manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant also got served legal notice upon them but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C24.

2.                     On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their joint reply have taken preliminary objections such as territorial jurisdiction, locus standi, concealment of material facts and maintainability etc.  The car in question was got repaired as and when it was brought to the workshop as per the entire satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant approached the workshop for the first time on 06.04.2017 with the complaint of blowing of mil light and on the physical inspection of the car it was that the radiator and front bumper condsar were broken and it was recommended to the complainant that the same were required to be replaced. On asking regarding the case of damage/loss the complainant that his car got hit by dog and after hitting the car the complainant drove the car for 15 K.M. to reach the work. In this process the coolant of the car in question spilled out from it due to which the car in question got heated resulting into malfunctioning indicator lamp in the Speedo meter penal started giving indication.  The complainant had given all the details of the accident to the insurance company to obtain the complaint but this material information has been concealed and as per approval of insurance claim, the front bumper, radiator assembly, grille, radiator lower and condenser assembly were change and as per service schedule the first service was also done on 08.04.2017 at 1126 KM and the complainant had received the car with his full satisfaction. Estimate of Rs.2,000/- for replacement of the said part of the car in question was given to the complainant and said part was changed and the road test thereof was also done for 150 KM and now the car in question is perfectly alright and the same was intimated to the complainant through telephonically and by personal visit of the officials of the OPs but the complainant did not turn up for receiving the same and a letter dated 18.04.2017 has also been written to him. There is no defect in the car in question. Other contentions have been controverted  and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

                        OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 05.04.2017 when a dog came in front of the vehicle causing radiator leakage. The vehicle was sent to workshop of OP No.2 on 06.04.2017 and the complainant reported malfunction indicator blinking in speedometer and upon inspection the radiator and condenser assembly was found broken and the vehicle was driver after the accident causing warning malfunction indicator. The overheating problem in the vehicle was due to external due to accidental impact hence the repairs could not have been done under warranty. The same was communicated to the complainant but he has concealed these facts. As per clause 4 (4) as enumerated in Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet which clearly states that Clause 4 (4) This Warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacement required as a result of accidents or collision. The car stopped working due to overheating and there was no manufacturing defect in the same as the defect had occurred due to accident.  The relationship between the OP No.1 & 2 and answering OP is on principal to principal basis and as per clause 5 of the dealership agreement the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA, Annexure R3/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3, Annexure R3/1 to Annexure R3/4.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the said car from OP No.2 on 17.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.3,47,991/-  as per Annexure C11. The case of the complainant is that after purchase of the vehicle car in question stopped working on 07.04.2017 and he brought the said car to OP No.2 i.e. service centre of OP No.3 and he paid the amount of Rs.8441/- to OP No.2 but after repair it again stopped working due to overheating as per writing dated 10.04.2017 Annexure C15. As per version of the complainant said problem was removed by OP No.2 but he further taken a plea that car in question is not working properly and there is regular problem due to overheating and the same is still continuing. To prove this fact complainant has tendered the affidavit of Dharam Pal, mechanic and also tender the copy of training certificates for the period from 26.10.1987 to 11.11.1987 and 16.11.1987 to 02.012.1987 and he examined the vehicle in question and found the following defect i.e. overheating of engine of the said car; problem is back pressure of engine oil of the said car and problem in coolant back pressure of engine of the said car and tendered documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.  As per order dated 15.12.2017 counsel for OP No.1 & 2 stated that vehicle is ready for delivery and OP is directed to produce the vehicle in question before this Forum alongwith the mechanic as well as both the parties would remain present and mechanic had examined the vehicle and also filed his affidavit. Counsel for OP has requested that they want to cross-examine the said mechanic and same was allowed vide order dated 15.05.2018 and Dharampal was cross-examined wherein he has admitted that he is ITI passed and at that time BSI type vehicles were available in the market and the present vehicle is of Type 3 and he had inspected the same and he had not taken the training qua repairing of such type of vehicle.  During further cross-examination he has also admitted that he has no authority to give any inspection report of any vehicle. He has further admitted that he does not know whether the fan of radiator was on or not at the time of inspection. Perusal of cross-examination of this witness is enough to reach at a conclusion that he was not reliable witness and his evidence is not helpful to the complainant and the defect mentioned by the expert in his affidavit cannot indicate that there was any manufacturing defect therefore; this affidavit cannot be construed as tangible evidence.

6.                                 Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 06.08.2018                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                       

 

 

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                                                                      MEMBER