Complainant Gurpreet Singh has filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that opposite party may be ordered to remove the total defect Gear, Air Bag and Horn Problem and directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.14,831/- and Rs.40,000/- price of Tyres and Rims alongwith interest for harassment and mental agony suffered by him at the hand of opposite party alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Duster Renault Car bearing No.PB-06-S-0032 and Engine No.4525 Chassis No.MEEHSRAW5C900346 on 11.10.2012. From the date of purchasing the car, he made the complaint to the opposite party regarding Gear, Air Bag and Horn Problem, but the opposite party no.1 assured him that he will remove the entire problem regarding working condition of Duster Car but the opposite party has not sort out his problem till now. A legal notice was sent to the opposite party on 18.2.2016. In the last of January 2016 the said Car was creating more problem and he called Mr.Munish and told the opposite party in detail, he come on 2nd February 2016 early hours but he told the opposite party that car is not working properly, he will face the problem on the way and the Munish said to the complainant that he cannot help him in this problem. On 2nd February 2016 he moved to Amritsar for repair of Duster Car in authorize Agency but when he reached at Batala bye pass the Gear of the car totally stopped and told about the condition of car. He tried his best to move the car but all the efforts failed. He called Mr.Varun (General Manager) and asked to Munish (Workshop Manager) provider to pickup the car and service provider came in very late to pick his car. The car was purchased in the month of October 2012, but at present only 35470 Kilometers is running but the major problem of the Duster Car is from the date of purchasing. The car was having manufacturing defect. On 2.02.2016 the behaviour of Munish and Bakhshinder Singh was very bad. On 3.2.2016 they said to him the car is ready and make the payment of Rs.14,831/- but he refused to make the payment because car was under warranty period but the opposite party no.1 said they cannot handover the car without payment. Ultimately, he made payment under protest vide R.O.No.ROAMJA16002256 dated 3.2.2016 at Gurdaspur. He has further pleaded that Munish and Bakhshinder Singh made a fraud with him and received payment illegally without showing any part which has been changed. Both have also changed tyres of car alongwith rim due to which he is suffering huge loss of money. The act and conduct of the opposite parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was denied because the complainant is neither having an expertise nor is an Automotive Expert to state that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the complainant has not taken any Expert Opinion to support its allegation of manufacturing defect. It is evident from the repair invoice dated 3.2.2016 of the complainant that the said repair is the against the normal wear and tear of vehicle and the complainant is baselessly implicating the opposite parties in the instant complaint after plying the car for a period of four years on road. It is evident that the complainant is falsely implicating the opposite parties by making false, frivolous and vexatious statements so that the complainant can extort huge sum of money from the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Notice issued to opposite party no.1 had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.1, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 7.10.2016.
5. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-I, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Damien Gignoux Authorized Representative Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence
7. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the titled/contesting litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of some of the vital documents that have been somehow, ignored to be produced; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present opposing/ litigating sides.
8. We find that the complainant had delivered his 2012 Model Renault Duster Car to the opposite party1 vendor workshop for repairs pertaining to the Gear Box/Air Bag and Horn Sound etc on 02.02.2016 (Ex.C1) but that could not be repaired to his full satisfaction although he paid under protest on 03.02.2016 the full repair charges Bill for Rs.14,831/-. He has further alleged that the said defects/faults had been the inherent manufacturing defects since the date of purchase of the car but still persisted even after ‘4’ years of repairs on several occasions. However, we find that the complainant has not produced any cogent/reliable evidence to support his allegations and not even an expert opinion to prove his claim of manufacturing defects; although he has claimed refund of repair charges only, of course coupled with cost and compensation etc.
9. On the other hand, we find that the opposite party ‘1’ vendor workshop has preferred to stay absent and be proceeded against exparte giving way to the trite judicial discretionary presumption that it has no defense to plead; whereas the OP2 manufacturers have vehemently contested the complainant’s claim through its lone affidavit Ex.OP1 deposing the un-necessarily details along with issues of law. Sic! Further, stating that the car was duly repaired on all occasions to the complainant’s full satisfaction but the ‘4’ year old used car can be perfectly repaired by way of total replacement of engine parts and other accessories but that cannot be provided free-of-cost since even the car’s extended ‘warranty’ has also since expired and the complainant was not inclined to pay for the spare parts etc otherwise the car is okay and in working order except for the ‘humming’ sound and that is quite normal for the extensively used 2012 model car; whereas the opposite part1 vendor workshop has already opted to be proceeded against ‘ex-parte’ giving prompt to discretionary deduction that it has no defense to prosecute. However, the opposite party1 vendor workshop shall not be allowed to escape its post sales and repair responsibility and even that shall not be acceptable as per the applicable consumer laws. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for opposite party2 manufacturers has offered for the sake of customer service his client can ask the OP1 vendor to fix-up the desired spare parts sans any labor charges but in that case the complainant need be first prepared to pay for the pats etc.
10. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP1 vendor workshop to get the instant Car thoroughly checked (as a one-time measure only) and repaired sans any labor charges as a gesture of goodwill in case the complainant is prepared to pay for the cost of the needed spare parts within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the present orders. The parties shall however bear their own costs, here.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
December 21, 2016 Member
*MK*
