BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 73 of 2013.
Date of Institution : 14.3.2013
Date of Decision : 7.9.2016
Satpal son of Shri Mohan, resident of House No.154, V.P.O Nirban, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Garg Motors, Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra through its Proprietor, at Hisar road, Sirsa. Shree Tractors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
- 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: Sh. Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate 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 the complainant purchased vehicle Mahindra GIO passenger from the opposite party no.1 on 30.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. The opposite party no.1 had given one year warranty against all kind of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thereafter, the said vehicle was registered with Registering Authority vide registration No.HR-57/6081. The service centre of op no.2 is also with op no.1. After purchase of said vehicle, the complainant used the same very smoothly but he was shocked to find that just after two months, its engine started making problem as the head gas-kit of the engine is not working properly and the engine stopped functioning automatically. Upon the complaint, the op no.1 done the repair work many times, firstly in the month of September, 2011 after charging a sum of Rs.5200/-, then in the month of January, 2012 and again in the month of June, 2012 and all the times the ops assured him that the problem in the engine has been removed but same still exists. The complainant again approached the op no.1 upon which op no.1 called the defective vehicle in its show room and since then same is lying there and op no.1 has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. Despite his several visits, the op no.1 is lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to the act and conduct of op no.1 and on account of non running of the said vehicle on the road, the complainant has undergone financial loss and has failed to deposit the installments of the financed amount and has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the ops either to replace the vehicle with new one or to refund the costs of the vehicle alongwith interest and also to pay rupees one lac as compensation and also litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 filed its reply submitting therein that op no.2 i.e. manufacturer had given a warranty regarding the defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service for one year or 60000 KMs whichever is earlier, but that was subject to the terms and conditions as laid down in the warranty i.e. if any of the free services have not been availed at specified mileage/ or time is passed or the vehicle is not serviced by the authorized dealer/ service centre at every interval of 5000 KM or 60 days whichever is earlier after service coupons are exhausted then the warranty will be null and void. This fact was made clear to the complainant. The complainant was required to get the service of the vehicle for the first time at 1000 KM or 15 days whichever is earlier. But the complainant for the first time came to the service centre of op no.1 on 24.8.2011 for first service. At that time the vehicle had already run 3524 KMs. The complainant on next visit came on 19.9.2011 when the vehicle had already run 6420 KMs and so the complainant was not observing the terms and conditions of the warranty and had roughly plied the vehicle and has thus rendered disentitled to any benefit of the warranty. However, the answering op has been accommodating the complainant every time. The defects as alleged in the vehicle developed due to rough handling of the vehicle and due to the fact that vehicle was not got serviced properly and in time. The op no.1 has also been charging very nominally. It is denied that any defect developed in the engine as alleged. Now the warranty has been expired. The complainant for the last time came to the service centre on 11.9.2012 for a paid service. By that time the vehicle had already run 29501 Kms and the usual parts like oil service, engine oil and fuel filters were changed and general checkup was done and no other defect was pointed out. The complainant only wants replacement of the vehicle on false allegations.
3. Opposite party no.2 resisted the complaint by filing separate reply and has asserted that it has been inquired that the complainant was using adulterated fuel which damaged the engine. It appears from the service history that complainant continued to use the same adulterated fuel and same problem occurred despite rectification for 2/3 times. The complainant has not attached any expert report to corroborate the fact that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is still lying in dealership after the removal of defects but complainant is not coming forward to take the delivery of the same for the reason best known to him. As per the information available to the replying op from its dealer, as and when within the warranty period, the complainant approached to the dealer, his grievance has been redressed to his satisfaction, but the complainant himself failed to use the purified fuel inspite of specific warning given by the dealer/ service centre, hence the op no.2 is not liable for any defect.
4. The complainant in his evidence has placed on file copy of form No.15 Ex.P1, copy of invoice dated 20.6.2012 Ex.P2 and copy of registration certificate Ex.P3. On the other hand, op no.2 placed on file affidavit Ex.RW1/A, op no.1 has placed on file affidavit Ex.R1, document of standard warranty Ex.R2 and vehicle history Ex.R3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is no dispute that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party no.1 on 30.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. The above said vehicle is manufactured by opposite party no.2. The complainant is alleging defect in the engine of the vehicle Mahindra GIO passenger since beginning but according to the opposite party no.1 the complainant has not adhered to the service schedule of the vehicle in question. He was required to get the service of the vehicle for the first time at 1000 KM or within 15 days whichever earlier, but complainant for the first time came to the service centre on 24.8.2011 and at that time the vehicle had already run 3524 Kms. and according to the op no.1 after that also the complainant did not adhere to the service schedule. The opposite parties have placed on file vehicle history in this regard Ex.R3 to show that complainant did not adhere to the service schedule. The same goes to show that although vehicle in question has been serviced/repaired in the service centre of op no.1 for nine times from 24.8.2011 to 11.9.2012 but the complainant has failed to adhere the warranty condition and got serviced the vehicle after long gap. In Ex.R3, it is mentioned that on 11.9.2012, the vehicle had already run 29501 KMs. The warranty of the vehicle has already expired as the period of one year has elapsed. The opposite parties have alleged that complainant has roughly plied the vehicle and has mishandled the same. There is also no evidence on file that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same could not run for such 29501 Kms. and the possibility that complainant has mishandled the vehicle in question cannot be ruled out.
7. However, keeping in view the fact that the vehicle is lying with the opposite party no.1 since long and complainant has alleged that due to non running of the vehicle, he has failed to deposit the installments of financed amount and has also suffered financial loss, therefore, the opposite parties are directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the complainant after making the same defect free and in proper running condition within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and complainant will be required to take back the delivery of same within 45 days from today. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 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:7.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
