Delhi

East Delhi

CC/858/2012

JAGBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FAIRDEAL CARS - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2013

ORDER

      DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                  CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-858/12

In the matter of:

Sh. JAGBIR SINGH, 

S/O SH. KHEM CHAND,

R/O 1045/27, BABA KHARAK SINGH MARG,

DELHI-110001

 

Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. M/S FAIRDEAL CARS PVT. LTD.

485-A, MAIN G.T.ROAD,

JHILMIL, SHAHDARA,

1.  

(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

 

2. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

PALAM GURGAON ROAD,

GURGAON-122015 (HARYANA)

(THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE)

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-18/10/2012

                                                                                DATE OF ORDER         -08/09/2015

 

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant booked a Maruti Swift Dzire Car on 30/04/2012 with the OP No.1 and paid a booking amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter he further paid a sum of Rs.1,89,690/- through three cheques to OP-1 and for remaining amount. He has taken car loan from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. He purchased car namely SWIFT DZIRE, No. DL 5C J 2681 on 17/05/2012 for a total sum of rs.7,43,358/-. The car was delivered on the same day. After few days of purchase, he was told by a car expert that the left door of the said car up to diesel tank is painted and dented its old door and has been inserted into the said new car. He immediately approached to the OP-1 and stated about the above said fact to its Sales Manager and General Manager. They accepted and assured that the door can be replaced by original one to which the complainant didn’t agree as the complainant has been sold an old car. He requested for the replacement of the car but the same has not been replaced as yet. A written complaint was lodged on 11/06/2012, no reply has been given. It is also alleged that the OP has committed fraud and cheating and have also indulge in unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed for the replacement of the defective and damaged car with brand new SWIFT DZIRE Car or refund a sum of Rs.7,43,358/- towards the price of the car with 12% p.a. interest and Rs.200,000/- for compensation and cost of litigation.

            OP-2 filed their reply wherein it has been alleged that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the party. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of vehicle nor hired any service against consideration from the OP No.2, the manufacturer. The dealer carried out all the Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) of the vehicle. In this case Final Check OK (FCOK) was done on 18/04/2012 by the OP-1 and Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) was done on 30/04/2012 by the OP-1 before making the delivery to the complainant and it was delivered in perfect road worthy condition and there is no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as against the OP-2. The relevant claim is not covered by the Act and this complaint is an abuse on the process of law. The vehicle in question was sent to OP-1 work shop on 08/06/2012 at 1816 Kms, on 28/09/2012 at 10182 Kms, and on 21/12/2012 at 13941 Kms, for accidental repairs which itself shows careless and improper use of the vehicle. The accidental repair is not covered under the warranty. On 31/01/2013 at 14921, it was brought for running repair. The report if any has been prepared in connivance of the complainant. The complaint deserves to be dismissed.

            OP-1 in his reply alleged that the complainant has concealed this fact that the car in question met with an accident on 08/06/2012, in the said accident the Lining & Front Fender (Left Hand Side), Bumper Front (Black), Panel Front Fender LH, and Holder Front Bumper Side LH etc. were got damaged. The complainant has concealed the factum of accident and manipulated the story that OP-1 has sold the damaged, dented and repainted car to the complainant. Rest of the allegation has been denied.

            Both the parties have filed the evidence in support of their respective claim.  

            Heard and perused the record.

            This fact is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant on 17/05/2012. As per the allegation in the complaint, the car sold had left door painted and dented when it was sold to the complainant. It is argued on behalf of the OP that the burden lies upon the complainant to prove this fact that at the time of purchase, it has a dented and painted left door. The OP has come with specific allegation that this car met with an accident on 08/06/2012 which resulted in damage of left hand side Lining and Front Fender and Bumpers and left side items. They have filed on record along with affidavit Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI), Job Card which is Annexure R2/3. The delivery check list and Job Card dated 08/06/2012 showing the damage sustained by the vehicle and repair done. They have further filed on record the Job sheet dt. 28/09/2012 showing damage to the bumper etc. and repair carried out. The left side damage is shown in Job Sheet dated 29/12/2012, the description has been given of the work done. In the affidavit of Jagbir Singh, this fact has not been denied that this car has not sustained the accidental damage as indicated in the Job Sheet which has been filed by the OP. He is relying on the affidavit of Mr. Ram Kumar proprietor S R Motors who has alleged that he is in business of sales and purchase and repair of the vehicle and he has inspected this vehicle on 05/06/2012 and there he found that the car was defective before its sale. The simple question arises when the complainant has knowledge regarding defect on 05/06/2012 as advised by Mr. Ram Kumar then why he has not brought this fact to the notice to the OP when he took this car for repair on 08/06/2012. That time this vehicle has done only 1816 Km. on 30/09/2012 it has covered 10,182 Km and on 21/12/2012, 13941 Km there is no document in support of the contention of the complainant that he ever brought this fact to the notice of the OP-1 that the left door was dented and painted at the time of the sale of this vehicle. In these circumstances the affidavit of Mr. Ram Kumar cannot be believed. The Annexure-1 along with the affidavit of Mr. Qamar Zaidi on the contrary shows that this vehicle was always brought for body repair. The vehicle history Annexure-1 to 4 is indicative that the vehicle was repeatedly damaged by the complainant.

            We don’t find any evidence on record to support the contention of the complainant that the vehicle was damaged when sold or door was dented or painted. The contention of the OP finds favour from the material on record. The complaint has not merit and it is dismissed accordingly.

            Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.

 

SUBHASH GUPTA                          POONAM MALHOTRA                       N.A.ZAIDI

     (MEMBER)                                              (MEMBER)                              (PRESIDENT)