Haryana

StateCommission

A/899/2016

JITENDER YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ABHIMANYU SINGH

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.899 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:29.09.2016

                                      Date of Decision: 27.10.2016

 

Jitender Yadav R/o G-144, South City-2, Gurgaon Distt. Gurgaon.

…Appellant

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., registered office-Chandrapura,Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, Distt. Panchamahals, Gujrat through its G.M.

2.      Aravali Auto (A Unit of Gentech Teoling Pvt. Ltd.) Plot NO.66, IDC Mehrauli road, Gurgaon through its authorized person.

3.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Limited Regd. Office GE Plaza, Airport Rod, Yerwada, Pune 411106 Local Branch Office- at Gurgaon through its Divisional Manager.

                                                …Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr.Virender Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased  car in October 2011 from the Opposite party (O.P.) No.2.  O.P.No.1 was manufacturer of the car and O.P.No.3 was insurer. Insurance policy was valid from 26.10.2012 to 25.10.2013. He further alleged that in the month of October 2013 engine of car started giving trouble and he left car in the workshop of O.P.No.2 for repair. After inspection it was told that there was some technical defect in the engine  and was to be replaced. He requested O.P.No.1 to replace engine of the car which was under warranty.  O.P.No2. changed engine, but, asked to pay Rs.1,12,753/-. He requested O.P.No.1 to pay because vehicle was under warranty. As O.P.No.2 refused to deliver the car, he paid Rs.1,12,753/- on 10.10.2013.  Despite several requests, O.P.No.1 did not pay the amount of repair. He served legal notice on 22.04.2014, but, O.Ps. did not pay any heed.

2.      O.Ps filed seperate reply and controverted his averments. It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that  repair was not covered under manufacturers’ warranty. He agreed to pay Rs.1,12,753 for repair of engine of the car, so he was not entitled to refund of cost of repair.

3.      O.P.No.2 alleged that as per history of the said vehicle, the oil pan (sump) was damaged and was replaced earlier on 17.02.2013. Again same problem existed in the car, but, complainant refused  for replacement of oil pan (sump). Vehicle was again brought on 08.08.2013 in toe condition because it could not start. On inspection it was found  that engine needed overhaul. The defect was not covered under terms and condition of warranty.  The condition of vehicle was also told to him and he paid all the dues.  Objections about locus standi, maintainability, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      O.P.No.3 alleged that  as per terms and conditions of the policy, it was not liable to pay the claim in case of manufacturing defect.

5.       After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (in short ‘District Forum’) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 26.07.2016.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued  that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the car and as per warranty of vehicle, he was entitled for Rs.1,12,753/- for repair of vehicle.

9.      This argument is devoid of any force.  Since the complainant has already sold the vehicle to another person, so the complaint is not maintainable.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in Tata Motors Limited Vs. Hazoor Maharaj Baba and another in RP No.2562 of 2012 decided on 25.09.2013  when once vehicle is sold during pendency of complaint, complainant does not remain consumer for the purpose of consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  The findings of the learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

October, 27^th, 2016     Diwan Singh Chauhan             R.K. Bishnoi

                                      Member                                  Judicial Member

                                      Addl.Bench                             Addl. Bench.

 

R.K