Haryana

Ambala

CC/195/2021

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Kaushik

14 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    195 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     01.07.2021

                                                          Date of decision     :     14.07.2022.

 

Kulwinder Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh, resident of House No.2368, Sector-23, Chandigarh, permanent resident of village Kanwla, District Ambala.                                                                                                                   ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Ford India Pvt. Limited, Showroom: S.P. Koli Post Chengalpattu, Chennai (TN) through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Ford India Pvt. Limited, 5th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chim 142, Sector 44, Gurugram- 122003, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. M/s Tanish Autocars Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.1, Bestech Park View, Sohna Road, Gurugram-122001 through its authorized Signatory.

 

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Anil Kumar Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

OPs are already ex parte.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

i) To replace the car with new car or to refund the amount of the value of the car of Rs. 32,89,487/- along with cost of insurance and registration charges.

ii) To pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation/damages for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

                                    Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem   fit.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that vide invoice No.2020-21/SEP-031 dated 29.9.2020, complainant  purchased a new Ford Endeavour 2 L Titanium + 4 x 2 AT, colour Absolute Black Engine No.LL 54303, Chassis No.MAJAXXMRWALL54303 bearing Temporary Registration No. HR-2020-T/R -0568 AV now Registration No.CH-01CC-2000, from the opposite party No.3 by paying sale consideration of Rs.32,89,487/-. The said vehicle is manufactured by the OPs No.1 & 2. After taking delivery of the said vehicle, on the next day, the complainant noticed that its body has been repainted from rear right side, meaning thereby, that OP No1 has sold a repainted and defective vehicle to him. By selling the repainted and defective vehicle to the complainant, the OPs have committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2021.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant
5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.
6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that it was only on account of the reason that the vehicle in question was a repainted, as a result of which its paint started peeling of, within few days of purchase thereof, meaning thereby that it was a defective vehicle, as such the OPs are liable to replace the said car with a new one or the refund the amount paid alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.  
7.             After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and going through the record of this case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case, as he has neither moved any application under section 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission for inspection of the said vehicle by any expert nor has placed on file any expert opinion from which this Commission  is convinced that the vehicle in question  was repainted and defective. What to speak of expert report in the matter, even the photographs of the said vehicle  have not been placed on record. In the present case, the complainant has produced, in support of his allegations, his own affidavit. This affidavit is no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the said vehicle in question was repainted or was indeed suffering from any defects..  Under similar circumstances, in 2017 (3) CPR 24 (NC) [Baljit Kaur Vs Divine Motors and Anr.] the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-Baljit Kaur holding as under:-

"….While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s)..."

8.             In Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [(2006) 4 SCC 644], it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it is only if the manufacturing defect is established, replacement of the entire item or the replacement of the defective parts can be called for. Thus, it was bounden duty of the complainant to prove his version, by placing on record some cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of report of any expert, which he has failed in the present case.
9.             In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case that the repainted vehicle was sold to him or it suffered from any defects, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

   Announced on:- 14.07.2022

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President