Order No. 16 dt. 06.09.2018
The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that he purchased an Xcent @ RDI vehicle being Chasis No. MALA741DLEM039261 from Durga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. after much persuasion by the staff and owner of Durga Automobiles as they said “ that the vehicle is best one in India.” The complaint took delivery of the car on 06.08.2014.
After purchase of the vehicle the complainant requested for brochure and other documents from the officials of the Durga Automobiles but they said that the papers, documents, brochures will reach the complainant by post.
The O.P. No.1 is the corporate office whereas the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 were the local seller / dealer who issued papers sometime on the letterhead of O.P. Nos.2 and sometimes on the letterhead of O.P. No. 3. The O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 are the financer and the Insurance Company respectively. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 never handed over the Insurance Policy Papers of the vehicle to the complainant.
The value of the vehicle was Rs.500000/-. After purchase the vehicle showed some troubles. The O.P. Nos. 1 2 and 3 assured the complainant that there were some manufacturing defects in the vehicle which will vanish after the complainant uses the vehicle for few months.
That the vehicle had problems like late starting, malfunctioning of break and groaning sound of the engine which continued even after a couple of months used. The complainant reported the matter but the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 told the complainant that with time the problem will minimize.
On 11.12.2016 the car was paked for repairing and the same was delivered to the complainant on 11.02.2017 but the invoice was supplied on a different date. As the repairing was not done properly the complainant raised objection and reported the matter to R.O. Mr Tamal on 14.02.2017. Again the car was sent for repairing on 17.02.2017 and the car was handed over to the complainant on 19.02.2017 but the problem was not sorted and the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 reiterated that the issue of manufacturing defect and advised to ply the vehicle regularly. On 26.02.2017 when the complainant tried to start the vehicle the vehicle did not take start nor any part responded. So the complainant took the vehicle to the opposite party’s repairing hub.
The O.Ps first took Rs.1,97,289/- and then took Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant but did not issue any receipt against the same. Till date the car/vehicle is in the opposite party’s repairing hub and no initiative is being taken from the side of the O.P.s to rectify the defect and return the vehicle.
Despite repeated failure to rectify the fault the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 took no initiative to replace the vehicle and sort out the manufacturing defect.
The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 despite knowing the manufacturing defect of the vehicle sold the same to this complainant. The cause of action of this case was arose on 19.02.2017 and thereafter on 26.02.2017.
O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 did not contest the case nor appeared before the Forum. The case is heard ex parte against O.P. Nos. 1,2 and 3 and pro forma O.P. Nos. 4 and 5. O.P. No. 5 entered appearance by filing Vokalatnama but subsequently did not contest the case.
The complainant in support of his case filed Affidavit-in-Chief and related documents in support of his case which are marked as Exts. 1,2, 2(a), 3,3(a) and 3(b) and also a written notes on argument.
::POINTS FOR DISCUSSION::
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
We take up all the points together in discussion for convenience.
The complainant from the very day of purchase complained of manufacturing defect of the vehicle but he has not filed any expert report from any mechanic in support of his contention. He had stated in his petition of complaint that the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 told the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect in the vehicle and those defects will vanish if the complainant uses the vehicle for a couple of months. In support of his above statement the complainant has not filed a single scrap of paper.
The complainant had stated that the value of the vehicle was Rs. 5,00,000/- but he has not filed any paper in support of that. He filed money receipt dt. 06.08.2014 amounting to Rs.6,00,000/-, money receipt dt. 10.06.2014 amounting to Rs.44,000/- and money receipt dt.22.08.2015 amounting to Rs. 6,800/- issued by O.P. No.2. The complainant filed a carbon copy of car service of Xcent Model at S.N. Hyundai dt. 14.02.2017 but it does not reveal that the car was sent to the Service Centre for correction of any manufacturing defect.
We do not find any paper or any statement from any authorized person who is an expert in detecting the manufacturing defect. Moreover, the vehicle was purchased in the year 2014 and soon after the purchase the complainant detected from the statement of the O.P. as alleged that there was manufacturing defect but he had preferred to file a Consumer Case before this Forum in the year 2017 which is 9 months beyond the period of limitation provided by the Sec. 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant with a vexatious intention filed the instant case and brought in 19.02.2017 and 26.02.2017 to bring this case within the period of limitation.
The complainant stated that in these two dates 19.02.2017 and 26.02.2017 cause of action arose respectively but he has not shown the reason why he had chosen these two dates as cause of action though he has not filed any document / paper to support his contention.
The complainant has no sufficient documentary proof to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nor any evidence to show that unfair trade practice was adopted by the opposite parties. The complainant filed a frivolous and vexatious case against the opposite parties with an ulterior intention to get monetary gain.
The complaint case has no foot to stand. Hence, fails.
Proper fee paid.
Hence, ordered
that Malda D.F.C. Case No. 24 of 2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed against the opposite parties without cost.
A copy of the order be given to each of the parties free of cost
