BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.17/14.

Date of instt.: 13.01.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Ram Karan Singh son of Tarsem Singh, r/o Rajound, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Eakansh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Regd. Office Plot No.Nalson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ranbir Rana, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Deepak Seth, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Op No.2 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is the owner of Car Swift Dizire VDI bearing registration No.HR-75/4099, Model 2011.  It is alleged that the complainant got done regular service and check-up of car from the Op No.1 from time to time.  It is alleged that the vehicle of complainant started problem in the speedo meter/meter of the vehicle turned-back automatically and problem in pick-up of the car.  It is further alleged that the complainant complained to the Op No.1 to remove the above-said problem but the mechanic of Op No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext to another.  It is further alleged that the mechanic of Op No.1 said the complainant that now they removed both the problems and his vehicle will be O.K. but the speed meter of the vehicle showed again problem of turned back and pick-up of the vehicle is not well.  It is further alleged that the complainant again complained to the Manager of Op No.1 and at last repeatedly complained by the complainant, the Op No.1 charged the speed meter in the month about September/October, 2013 but the problem of the less pick-up is not removed by the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that again in the month of December, 2013 the complainant again checked up/service their car from Op No.1 and told the mechanic of the workshop that their vehicle has not picked up rather than other cars and on this head, the mechanic checked whole car and said the complainant that his car Turbo, who made the pick-up car is defaulted.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that as per the record, one Arun Chahal, resident of 116/13, Indri was the original owner of the car in question and lateron, this car was transferred in favour of Sh. Vinod Rana, resident of H.No.1692, Sector-7, Kurukshetra.  The ownership of the complainant qua the car in dispute vehemently denied and disputed; that on 29.07.2013 the customer/owner of the car, not the complainant, brought the car in question to the service-station of the answering Op on the complaint that the speedo meter of the car was not working and at that time, the reading of the speedo meter was 14195; that on 26.08.2013 the speedo meter of the car in question was replaced under the warranty scheme and nothing was charged from the complainant for the said replacement.  Thereafter, the car in question came in the workshop of the answering Op on 16.10.2013 at the reading of 2630 and on 16.11.2013 at the reading of 4972.  From the above-said facts, a safe conclusion can be drawn that the replaced speedo meter was working effectively.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op; that the answering respondent never charged Rs.20,000/- from the customer/owner, rather as per the job-card dt. 04.12.2013, Rs.4900/- was charged from the customer/owner.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.