BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 54 of 2013.                                                                          

                                                          Date of Institution         :    22.2.2013

                                                          Date of Decision   :    21.12.2016

Gurmail Singh son of Kehar Singh, resident of village Ralla, Tehsil and District Mansa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Garg Motors, Hisar road, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Managing Director/ Partner/ Prop.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., SCO 17, Sector-26D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its General Manager (Sales) or competent authority.

3. Kansal Auto Finance, near Guru Nanak Children Hospital, Link Road, Mansa through its Prop./ Partner.

                                                         ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                    SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Surjit Singh,  Advocate for the complainant.

           Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

           Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.                

                      Opposite party no.3 already exparte.

ORDER

                   It is the case of the complainant that earlier complaint No.149 dated 3.5.2012 filed by him before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa was dismissed on 3.1.2013 on the ground of jurisdiction with liberty to approach the Court/Forum of competent jurisdiction to seek his redressal. As such, he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 22.2.2013. The case of the complainant is that he was unemployed and op no.3 suggested him to purchase a vehicle to earn his livelihood by collecting milk from various places for Nestle India Ltd. Milk Collection Center No.851 at village Ralla. Accordingly, he had purchased Mahindra Gio Load vehicle from op no.3 who is working as agent for op no.1.  On 28.7.2011, op no.3 had delivered the vehicle bearing engine No.11C 9118124, chassis No. B5D 28164 amounting to Rs.1,67,800/- vide delivery challan No.326 dated 27.7.2011 issued by op no.1. The complainant paid Rs.45,000/- to op no.3 and remaining amount was to be paid in monthly installments as offered by op no.3. The vehicle is manufactured by op no.2. OP no.3 also stated that in case of any defect, he would provide mechanics at Mansa and immediate service would be provided to him. It is worth to state that the said vehicle has specific technology and every mechanic cannot handle its mechanism, only specialists of Gio can repair the vehicle. It is further alleged that just after some days after delivery of vehicle, he noted that there were various defects in the said vehicle and on asking op no.3 called the mechanics but the mechanics did not come to Mansa for days together. Firstly within one month after purchase, the chamber of the vehicle and clutch plates damaged, gas kit leaked, the pump and injection also damaged and all the defects were removed by mechanics called by op no.3 from the office of op no.1. Then after some days, the wire set damaged and it has been changed almost every month. The assembly was also changed and speedometer assembly was removed and replaced by the mechanics but the defects remained intact. The engine of the vehicle is continuously leaking. The loading capacity of the vehicle is 5 quintals but it cannot pull 2 quintals and at various occasions it stopped and left working in the way and he had got it toed by spending huge amounts and milk also used to spoil for which he had to pay the value of the milk. One of the mechanic of ops unofficially stated that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and such defects cannot be removed. As per contract with Nestle India Limited, complainant had to collect milk daily and if his vehicle had any trouble then he had to arrange some other vehicle to collect milk. As such, at various occasions he had hired vehicle and collected milk and the owners of the vehicle had charged more than he gained. The contract rate is Rs.6.70/- per KM, whereas he had paid Rs.10/12 per KM for collecting milk to perform his part of contract due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. From the very first day of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant could not spend a single moment in peace rather the vehicle has caused problems and troubles at almost each and every step. On every occasion of repair, op no.3 charged from the complainant on one pretext or the other and did not issue any bill. However, the vehicle is within warranty/ guarantee period. The same is lying parked at the house of complainant. The opposite parties in connivance with each other supplied a vehicle having manufacturing defects and did not care complainant’s requests. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.3 did not appear despite acknowledgment and was proceeded against exparte on 22.4.2013.

3.                Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply on 28.10.2013 raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of facts. It has been further submitted that complainant on 30.8.2011 got the first free service from replying op when the vehicle had run 2739 KMs and he was provided proper service under company rules and there was no defect in the said vehicle. Further, the complainant visited on 10.9.2011 when the vehicle had run 4408 Kms. and he complained some troubles that caused due to improper handling and overloading, so some of the parts have been changed free of cost being under warranty period. As well as he got some services from the Bathinda Agency and also visited at Sirsa. On 10.2.2012, he got service from Bathinda Agency when the vehicle had run over 16972 Kms. and two parts have been changed being the vehicle under warranty period. Lastly, the complainant visited the office of replying op on 14.3.2012 when the vehicle had run over 18599 Kms. but there was no defect in the vehicle and complainant was fully satisfied. However, op no.1 changed some parts as per company rules and he was advised not to drive the vehicle with overload weight as it was found that the vehicle was driven by inexperienced driver who used the vehicle in a rough manner and during trial driving it was observed that said driver was habitual of leaving the clutch which caused defects in clutch plates. The complainant and his driver both were apprised in this respect. The complainant after being fully satisfied got the delivery of the vehicle and replying op is still ready to provide services under company rules. The vehicle is zero defect vehicle and has run over more than 19000 Kms. and at this stage complainant cannot say that the vehicle is defective one and cannot ask for replacement with new one. The complainant being fully satisfied signed the service forms. The vehicle was used for commercial purposes and complainant did not get services as per specifications of company. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.

4.                Opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle in question contested the complaint almost on similar lines as pleaded by op no.1 and besides this it has been submitted that no date of any defect and what defect occurred has been specified. The complainant has not appended any expert opinion and even has not annexed any job cards giving details as to when he has approached the dealership and what defects he has reported there. Remaining contents of complaint have been denied.

5.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of delivery challan Ex.C2, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of form 22 Ex.C5, copy of form 21 Ex.C6, copy of bill Bathinda agency Ex.C7, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C8, affidavit of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Mechanical Engineer Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of free service information document and warranty card Ex.R2, vehicle history Ex.R3 to Ex.R6. OP no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

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

7.                Admittedly, the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant by opposite parties on 28.7.2011. As per copy of service information document Ex.R2, first service of the vehicle was to be availed between 500 to 1000 Kms or after 15 days whichever is earlier from the date of sale. Then second free service was to be availed between 4500 to 5000 Kms. or after 60 days whichever is earlier from the date of sale, third free service was to be availed between 9500 to 10000 Kms. or after 120 days whichever is earlier and fourth free service was to be availed between 14500 to 15000 Kms. or after 180 days whichever is earlier. However, the complainant did not adhere to the service schedule of the vehicle in question and according to op no.1, the complainant got the first free service on 30.8.2011 when the vehicle had run 2379 Kms. The third free service was got done by complainant on 10833 Kms. as is evident from vehicle history Ex.R5. Then fourth free service of the vehicle was got conducted by the complainant on 15956 Kms. as is evident from vehicle history Ex.R4. So, it is proved on record that complainant himself not got conducted the service of the vehicle from the ops in time. Whereas the opposite parties have provided services to the complainant and have changed some parts also within warranty period. Moreover, as the vehicle had run 18599 Kms. up to 14.3.2012, so it cannot be said that vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect. The complainant has placed on file affidavit of one Gagandeep Singh, Mechanical Engineer. According to him on 23.7.2012 he checked the Gio vehicle of the complainant. He had checked the engine, outer body, internal parts of the vehicle. He found that unlike all other four wheel vehicles, Gio has wet clutch (oil immersed) design which has limitations over the design of dry clutch, whenever there is inadequate amount of oil is left in the oil chamber, it starts giving continuous problem in the clutch plates. He has further mentioned that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and same is not repairable. However, the said assertions made in the affidavit is not conclusive about the vehicle in question as he has only commented about the design of the vehicle Gio manufactured by op no.2 and has not specifically stated that what type of defects have occurred in the vehicle in question.  Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same could not have run for 18599 Kms. and the possibility that complainant himself has mishandled the vehicle in question cannot be ruled out. So, in our considered opinion the complainant has failed to prove his case.

8.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room. 

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:21.12.2016.                          Member.    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                        Redressal Forum, Sirsa.