Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/446/2011

Randhir Singh S/o Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.Sharma

16 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint  No. 446 of 2011.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 06.05.2011

                                                                                                Date of decision:  16.05.2016

Randhir Singh aged about 35 years son of Sh. Balwant Singh, resident of Village Bakarpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Ford India Private Limited, Koil Post Chengalpet 603204, Tamil Nadu.
2. Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ambala Jagadhri Road, Village Tepla, Ambala Cantt, through its authorized signatory.
3. Pearl Ford, 403/C-VI, Old Court Road, Jagadhri through its Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                 …Respondents.

Before:               SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER

Present: Sh. D.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3.    

 

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Randhir Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is a registered owner of Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No. HR-02Q-0028 which was insured with the insurance company. The car of the complainant met with an accident on 31.12.2010 at mid night and was badly damaged, so, the car was taken by the complainant to the workshop of respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as OP No.3) for necessary repairs. OP No.3 sent the car in question for repair to Op No.2 at Tepla Ambala. The Op No.2 carried out the repair work of the car in question in their workshop and issued a bill of Rs. 43597/- out of which a sum of Rs. 20500/- was paid by the complainant and rest of the amount was to be paid by the Insurance Company. After perusal of the bill issued by Op No.2, it reveals that Op No.2 had changed parts of gear box as well as the excel and sensor were also changed. On coming to know of this fact, the complainant was surprised because no damage was caused to the excel and sensor in accident in question and moreover, so far as the parts of gear box are concerned, they were got replaced by the complainant from Op No.2 in the month of November, 2010 i.e. a month prior to the accident. So, there was no necessity to change these parts, in fact these parts were not changed and the same were old one but its charges were claimed in the bill issued by OP No.2 to the complainant. In this way, a sum of Rs. 27377/- was charged from the complainant in excess and without reason. The complainant objected the bills issued by Op No.2 at the time of delivery but the OPs did not listen to the complainant and remained adamant that the bill has been correctly issued. Hence, this complaint praying therein that OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs 27377/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the vehicle was received for accidental repair and as per terms of the contract warranty stands a nulled after vehicle met with an accident; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of the parties; car in question was purchased from Karnal whereas the repair of the car was carried out at Tepla (Amba), therefore, this Hon’ble Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the complaint is nothing but an attempt to malign and tarnish the image of Op No.1 which is well reputed in its business segment and renowned world over. The present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and also to extract unlawful financial gains. Moreover, both the partis have principal to Principal relation and under such a relationship it is assumed that the each party will be responsible for their acts and omissions. Since, the present complaint does not pertain to any manufacturing defect, therefore, OP No.1 cannot be fastened with any liability for the acts of commission or omission of the other parties. The present complaint is not maintainable as the car in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose to accelerate the growth and expansion of the complainant already exists in business, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1. On merit, all the contents mentioned in the complaint have been denied for want of knowledge as well as being wrong and incorrect. It has been further mentioned that vehicle was repaired to make it roadworthy otherwise OP No.2 had no reason to change these parts. As in the accidental case, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of damage and only needful repairs were done as per the requirement of the accidental job of the vehicle in question.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1.

4.                     OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action; no territorial jurisdiction because the vehicle was received for accidental repair and everything was got done at village Tepla, Tehsil & District Ambala and the Op No.3 has nothing to do with the said complaint, so, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute in question; the present complaint is totally false and frivolous; complainant has not disclosed the true facts before and after drafting the said complaint and no excess amount was ever charged by the service provider i.e. OP No.2 On merit, it has been stated that the car in question was directly received by Op No.2 at village Tepla, tehsil & District Ambala. The car of the complainant was properly attended to make it roadworthy otherwise there was no reason to change the parts, as required from time to time at the time of carried out the accidental job to the vehicle in question and no excess amount was ever charged by the OP No.2 and all other allegations were also denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                          To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of gate pass dated 13.01.2011 as Annexure C-1, Copies of service invoice dated 13.01.2011 of Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure C-2 & C-3, Copies of repair invoice as Annexure C-4 & C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits of Dushyanth Jayakumar working with Op No.1 as Annexure RW/A & RW/B and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents place on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that some parts i.e gear box, Sensor and Excel were changed/ replaced by Op No.2 service centre of OP No.1 whereas these parts were not required to be replaced as these parts were not damaged in the accident. So, the complainant is entitled to get refund an amount of Rs. 27,377/- charged by Op No.2 from the complainant vide bill Annexure C-2 & C-3.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs hotly argued that no cogent evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove that there was no damage to these parts i.e. parts of gear box, sensor and excel. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as the car of the complainant was badly damaged in the accident, so,  the necessary repair work was done to make the car in question roadworthy. It has been further argued that no excess amount was ever charged by Op No.2 from the complainant and lastly argued that complainant purchased the car in question from Ambala and accidental repair work was got done at village Tepla , Tehsil & District Ambala. So, this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and liable to be dismissed out rightly.

10.                   After hearing both the parties at length, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable as no such evidence has been filed by the complainant to prove that some parts of gear box, excel and sensor were not damaged in the alleged accident. No expert or mechanic report has been placed on file, even, the complainant has failed to file any surveyor and loss assessor report who minutely and carefully checked the damaged car and assessed the loss. It is the case of the complainant that Op No.2 issued a bill for a sum of Rs. 43597/- out of which a sum of Rs. 20500/- was paid by the complainant and rest of the amount was paid by the insurance company. However, no such report of the surveyor and loss assessor has been placed on file to prove the facts mentioned in the complaint. Neither any snaps of the accidental car in question nor any mechanic report whatsoever has been placed on file to prove the allegation mentioned in the complaint. Even, the complainant has failed to file any cogent evidence from which it is evident that any cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as the entire grievances mentioned in the complaint is against the Op No.2 i.e. Kanav Motors Private Ltd. Tepla, Ambala Cantt from which the complainant got repaired his accidental car. No documents i.e. job sheet/job card or any bill has been placed on file relating to OP No.3. It seems that Op No.3 has been impleaded just to create the jurisdiction of this Forum.

11.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove the case by filing cogent evidence i.e. gear box, sensor and excel were not damaged in the accident and further were not replaced by Op No.2. Even the complainant has failed to file any documentary evidence that any part of cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

12                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 16.05.2016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER