Punjab

Sangrur

CC/393/2014

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hemant Goyal Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajesh Garg

07 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    393

                                                Instituted on:      14.07.2014

                                                Decided on:       07.05.2015

 

Sukhwinder Singh aged 30 years son of Kulwant Singh, R/o Village Laddi, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Hemant Goyal Motors, Patiala Road Sangrur (through dealer of Tata Motors) through its proprietor Hemant Goyal.

2.     Tata Motors through its Northern Regional Office, Chandigarh Tata Motors, SCO 170-171-172, First Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sukhwinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a base model Tata Safari from OP number 1 on 13.7.2012, which is now registered under registration number PB-13-AD-0967. It is further averred that at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question, the Ops gave a warranty of two years or 75000 KMs whichever is earlier.  After few days of its purchase, the vehicle started giving problem and further to consume 250 ML Engine oil in only 300 KM, which is very excessive consumption and generally the car consumes one litre in 15000 KMs, which fact was brought to the knowledge of the OP at the very first service which was conducted on 4.8.2012. It is further averred that thereafter again the car was got serviced from OP number 1 on 8.9.2012, 20.11.2012, 30.3.2013, 21.8.2013, 11.3.2013, 19.5.2014 and lastly on 11.7.2014 and all the times this problem was brought to the notice of the OPs. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops failed to rectify the defect in the vehicle in question. It is further averred that during the last service on 11.7.2014 the complainant requested the OPs to check the vehicle and repair it, but the OPs refuse to do so saying that to pay a sum of  Rs.80,000/- for repairs of the same is required.  The complainant also lodged the complaint with the OPs at its toll free number, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to immediately repair the car of the complainant in question or in the alternative to replace the car with a new one and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is totally false and frivolous, that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant has concealed the material facts before this Forum about the accidental claims of the vehicle in question taken for two times i.e. firstly on 20.7.2013 while covering 36185 KMs and secondly on 6.2.2014 while covering 58473 KMs, that the complainant had purchased Tata Safari on 13.7.2012 and the present complaint has been filed in the month of August, 2014 which is beyond warranty. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question and the remaining allegations of the complaint have been denied.  It is stated that at the first time the complainant reported about the consumption of oil only on 10.7.2014 and the same was properly attended along with other complaints leaving behind no other defect, thus complainant has no case made out. It is further stated that there is no manufacturing defect as the complainant has been using the vehicle for the last two years.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.         

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 10.12.2014.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of receipt, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of job cards, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-6 copies of record sheets, Ex.C-7 affidavit, Ex.C-8 copy of DL and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/5 copies of service history, Ex.OP1/6 copy of tax invoice, Ex.OP1/7 copy of job slip and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, reply, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from OP number 1 on 13.7.2012 and the vehicle in question was got serviced from the Ops from time to time. 

 

7.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question has consumption of excess mobile oil as the vehicle had consumed 250 ml of engine oil by just plying the vehicle for about 300 KMs. It is further case of the complainant that the excess consumption of mobile oil by the vehicle was brought to the knowledge of the OPs from time to time and even at the service of the vehicle, whereas the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant at the first time lodged such a complaint only on 10.7.2014, which was duly rectified and the complainant has filed the false complaint only to harass the OPs.

 

8.             We have very carefully perused the case file, but failed to find any case made out for consumption of excess mobile oil by the vehicle in question.  The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he ever approached the OP number 1 and complained about the excess consumption of mobil oil by the vehicle in question except 10.07.2014.  We have also perused the vehicle record and repairs carried out document, which is on record as Ex.C-5 and perused the date wise summary from 30.1.2013 to 19.5.2014, which clearly reveals that the vehicle was repaired on 30.1.2013 for running repair, 20.7.2013 accidental repairs, 30.7.2013 running repairs, 13.8.2013 running repair, 27.1.2014 running repair, 6.2.2014, accidental repairs, 21.4.2014 window and switch repairs and on 19.5.2014 for running repairs, but did not find any assertion regarding the excess consumption of mobil oil.    Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any expert opinion of an automobile engineer to say that there is excess consumption of mobil oil by the vehicle in question.  Moreover, the vehicle of the complainant has already run for 67619 KMs as on 19.5.2014.  It is worth mentioning here that if the vehicle in question had high consumption of mobile oil, then the vehicle would not have run by the complainant for 67619 KMs.  As such, we find no case made out for any excess consumption of the mobile oil by the vehicle of the complainant.

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 7, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member