BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 08.5.2014.
Date of Decision : 27.1.2017.
Mahender Kumar son of Shri Bahadar Ram, resident of village Dholpalia, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Garg Motors, Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra through its Proprietor, at Hisar road near Sikandarpur Chowk, Sirsa.
2. The Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: None for the complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased new Bolero Jeep Model ZLXBS3 from opposite party no.1 vide sale invoice No.83 dated 13.4.2013. The ops provided accessory of vehicle including Stereo make Kenwood KDCMP 249NB4 CD Receiver D.C 12V alongwith jack rod and second key etc. with full guarantee qua vehicle including accessories and extra items. The complainant purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs.7,79,00/- including the cost of the accessories. Thereafter, the complainant used and maintained the said vehicle very well and operated accessories with all due care and caution but inspite of that, the CD player gone out of order. The complainant approached op no.1 and complained about the defect in the CD player firstly on 4.3.2014 and op no.1 checked the same and got repaired the same and assured that in future if any defect occurs, either same will be replaced or its price will be refunded. However, after the repair, the CD player worked only for two/three days, resultantly he approached op no.1 upon which op no.1 kept the CD player with them and assured that they would forward his complaint to op no.2 and again given above said assurance. Thereafter, complainant has to take rounds to op no.1 time and again and after 12.4.2014 after lapse of guarantee period, stated that they cannot do nothing as same has gone out of warranty/ guarantee and thus the ops have played fraud with complainant. The op no.1 also refused to provide job sheet dated 4.3.2014. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 replied that CD player was working perfectly at the time of delivery of vehicle. As per the version of complainant, the same worked properly up to 4.3.2014, even there was no defect in the CD player as alleged. There is a warranty of one year provided on the electronic items and op cannot entertain any such complaint after the warranty period. The op no.1 however out of courtesy never refused to get any such CD player repaired. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.2 in its separate reply has submitted that op no.2 is not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commission of any act by its dealers because dealers are not agents of manufacturer but they are separate legal entities who can sue and can be sued on their own. The Kenwood, the manufacturer of the CD player has not been impleaded as a party. It is specifically mentioned in the warranty booklet that infotainment system is a proprietary items and its warranty is given by the respective manufacturer. The alleged defect of CD player has already been rectified and resolved and after that the complainant has never approached any of the authorized dealership of answering op which makes it clear that there is no alleged defect whatsoever existing in the CD player.
4. Today, the case was fixed for evidence of complainant but none is present to represent the complainant despite of repeated calls. The complainant has already availed sufficient opportunities including last opportunity for his evidence but has not produced any evidence and today none is present on his behalf. This Forum choose the way to decide the complaint on the basis of available record instead of dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution i.e. in default. From the perusal of record, it is evident that there is not even a single document on file to prove the defect in the CD player. There is nothing on file to prove the version of complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to bring home the allegations of complaint against the ops. Resultantly, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
