Delhi

North West

CC/1259/2015

SEEMA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GLOBUS CARS PVT.LTD. & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

  CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

 

CC No: 1259/2015

D.No._________________________                Dated: _________________

         

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

 

Dr. SEEMA SHARMA W/o Dr. MUKUL SHARMA,

R/o 4159, ARYA PURA, DELHI-110007.

 

NEW ADDRESS: A-4/103, TULIP GRAND,

AKBAR PUR BAROTA, JATHERI ROAD, SECTOR-35,

DISTT.-SONEPAT-131103, HARYANA.… COMPLAINANT

 

 

Versus

 

1. GLOBUS CARS PVT. LTD.,

    34, S.S.I. INDL. AREA, G.T. KARNAL ROAD,

    DELHI-110033.

 

2. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP SALES INDIA PVT. LTD.,

    4^th FLOOR, SILVER UTOPIA,

    CARDINAL GRACIOUS ROAD, CHAKALA,

    ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400099.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                               Date of Institution: 15.10.2015

Date of decision: 29.11.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

 

 

ORDER

 

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Section

CC No. 1259/2015                                                                         Page 1 of 6

          12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP thereby alleging that the complainant purchased Volkswagen Car make ‘Vento Highline 1.6L CR M/T’ bearing registration no. DL-8CY-1615 and OPs gave the warrantee for its free repair service and replacement of the defective parts. The complainant further alleged that the complainant found certain defects in the vehicle which were causing problem in smooth driving of the vehicle and the vehicle was inspected on 08.10.2014 in the workshop of OP-1 and some repair work was got done on the same date but thereafter a repair order was prepared and the vehicle was taken for repair and service on 17.10.2014 and OP-1 retained the vehicle for several days and returned it to the complainant by giving a report of repairing the defects and the complainant took the vehicle and found that the trouble still continued and the vehicle was brought to OP’s workshop due to the reason the repair work earlier was not done properly and the vehicle was handed over on 18.10.2014. Thereafter it was again returned back after doing some job on the vehicle to the complainant by reporting that the trouble would not reoccur again. The complainant further alleged that the trouble continued and a particular sound kept on troubling while driving the vehicle and the problem was continuing and ultimately it was taken to OPs on 17.11.2014 when the vehicle was again taken by

CC No. 1259/2015                                                                         Page 2 of 6

          OP for check up and repair work.The vehicle was kept by them upto 24.11.2014 when they were not able to repair the faults in the vehicle and the complainant is a practicing Homeopathic Doctor and found difficulty in commuting from the complainant’s premises to the clinic and other places on the ground of non-availability of the vehicle but still no repair was done on the pretext that the parts were not available and the complainant demanded an alternative vehicle or a service vehicle till the repair takes place and the vehicle is put to working condition but OP had a careless attitude and did not bother about the difficulties being faced by the complainant and the vehicle was returned on 24.11.2014 without repairing the same and charged an amount of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant on the plea of replacement of the part which in fact was covered under the free warrantee. The complainant further alleged that the complainant made a complaint to the customer care of OP-2 when the customer care manager apologized and instead of returning the amount of Rs.7,000/- offered that the charges of Rs.7,000/- would be adjusted in the next service in form of add-ons (rubbing and cleaning/interior cleaning) and on service labour and the legal demand notice dated 23.12.2014 was served upon OPs but they refused to pay any heed to the complainant and action of the OPs amountsto unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

CC No. 1259/2015                                                                         Page 3 of 6

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to compensate and pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs for their deficient services and harassment and illegally charging the money as well as compensate in arranging alternate vehicle and other damages alongwith cost of litigation.

3.       OP-2 has been contesting the case and filed reply wherein OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that OP-2 being a Sales Company provides the customers a limited warrantee in accordance with the terms & conditions and warrantee is not absolute. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after passing through stringent quality test. OP-2 further submitted that since its delivery the vehicle had clocked more than 54,000 KMS till December-2014 when the vehicle was last reported to the workshop of the dealer and no vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect will be able to clock more than 54,000 KMS in less than 2 years from the date of its deliveryand as such there is no deficiency in service and complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-2 and denied the contentions of OP-2.

CC No. 1259/2015                                                                         Page 4 of 6

5.       In order to prove her case the complainant filed her affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. SIP223818 dated 18.10.2014, no. SO304075 dated 17.11.2014 & invoice no. SIP224538 dated 24.11.2014issued by the OP-1, copy of letter dated nil of OP-2 regarding adjustment of Rs.7,000/- in the next services billand copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2014 alongwith postal receipts. In her affidavit the complainant stated that within a period of 2 years of its purchase, the vehicle i.e. Vento Car has been sold for a meagre sum of Rs.2,95,000/- after being fed-up with the performance of the vehicle.

6.       On the other hand on behalf of OP-2 Sh. Umesh Khadpe, Chief Manager Legal of OP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence which as per defence taken by OP-2 in the reply. OP-2 also filed written arguments.

7.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.The complainant, as per her own averments has sold the vehicle to a 3^rd person and has thus ceased to be the owner and user of the vehicle in question. Thus, the complainant has ceased to be the consumer within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,

 

CC No. 1259/2015                                                                         Page 5 of 6

          1986 and no relief can be granted to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

8.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as perregulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 29^thday of November, 2017.

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                         USHA KHANNA                         M.K. GUPTA

   (MEMBER)                                 (MEMBER)                             (PRESIDENT)