Delhi

East Delhi

CC/246/2013

TEJ SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIM MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 246/13

 

Shri Tej Singh Yadav

S/o Late Shri Sardar Singh

R/o: G-2/450, Sector-4

Vaishali, Gzb.                                                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

1. Him Motors Pvt. Ltd.

88, Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Director – Him Motors Pvt. Ltd.

D-9, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Delhi

 

3. Sr. Manager (Workshop)

Him Motors Pvt. Ltd.

338, FIE, Industrial Area

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092

 

4. Director- Tata Motors Limited

(Passenger Car Division) 305

Tower-B, Signature Tower,

South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana

 

5. Administrator- Global Administration

Service Pvt. Ltd.

Vatika Trangal, 5^th Floor, Sushant Lok-1

Block-A, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana                           …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 22.03.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 09.10.2018

Judgement Passed on: 16.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Tej Singh Yadav against              Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), Director-Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), Senior Manager (Workshop)-Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), Director–Tata Motors Ltd. (OP-4) and Administrator- Global Administration Service Pvt. Ltd. (OP-5) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo Manza car on 30.03.2011 from the showroom of Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) by paying an amount of Rs. 6,89,833/- (after discount of Rs. 32,000/-) out of which Rs. 19,015/- was paid to Oriental Insurance India Ltd. towards insurance of the car.  The complainant paid the cost of car of Rs. 6,70,818/- to OP-1 in the following manner:

 

Amount	Date	Via
Rs. 6,00,000/-	30.03.2011	Draft No. 745838
Rs. 74,868/-	01.04.2011	Cash

 

          According to this, the complainant paid excess amount of Rs.4,000/- to OP which was not returned despite repeated requests orally or in writing. 

          It was stated that on 30.03.2011, Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) handed over a Tata Indigo Manza car, bearing no. DL-4CAL-2446, to the complainant which was looked like old car as there were scratches on the car.  The complainant denied taking over the car, but it was stated that bill of the car was ready and papers were sent to transport department.  Hence, they were unable to replace the car or refund the amount.

          It was stated that the said car was handed over to the complainant with two year’s warranty and three year’s extended warranty.  It was told by OP-1 that they will repair the car and hand over the service book, extra keys, service coupon, extended warranty card, battery card and gift items to the complainant on the very next day, but nothing was done.

          The complainant sent a written complaint on 08.04.2011 to Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) and on 15.04.2011 to Director-Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), but all in vain.  In the meantime, OP-1 shifted his showroom at 88, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-92.

          It was also stated that there was starting problem in the car of the complainant, which was not repaired by Him Motors Pvt. Ltd.  (OP-1) and Senior Manager - Him Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) stating that service of the car was not done at scheduled time, hence there was no warranty and extended warranty and the car was repaired on payment basis. 

          It was further stated that the complainant made complaints to OPs for repair of the car and refund of excess payment of Rs. 4,000/- frequently, but his problems were not resolved.  Hence, the complainant stated that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Thus, he has prayed for directions:

1. to OP-1 to replace the car with a new one;
2. to OP-1, 2 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of harassment and  mental agony;           
3. to OP-4 to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-
4. to OP-5 to refund Rs. 5,250/-, paid for extended warranty
5. to OP-1 to refund Rs. 1,500/-, taken for car accessories and
6. Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply filed on behalf of OP-1 to 3, they have taken various pleas such as the car of the complainant met with an accident on and accidental repair was carried out on 08.09.2011; the complainant has not adhered to the terms and conditions to avail the warranty; he has not got the oil in his car changed every 10,000 K.M. and the complainant has failed to specify any defect/deficiency in the service rendered by OPs. It was denied that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was paid in excess by the complainant.

          It was stated that the car was purchased on 30.03.2011 and the present complaint is of dated 22.03.2013 (after two years).  If there were defects/shortcomings in the car, the complainant would not wait for a period of 2 years. The left out articles/documentation were delivered at the residence of the complainant by the functionary of the answering respondent.  It was admitted in complaint through job cards that parts have been replaced under warranty and jobs have been carried out free of cost; free services were also availed by the complainant on 21.04.2011 and 04.07.2011.  On 24.07.2012 also, the alternator assembly was replaced under warranty and battery of the car had also been replaced under warranty. Other facts have also been denied.

          In reply filed on behalf of OP-4, they have stated that they are the manufacturer of the vehicle in question; as per terms and condition of warranty, if the vehicle met with an accident, the warranty in respect of the vehicle has violated; the complainant did not carry the scheduled 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th and 6^th service of the car.  It was submitted that answering OP had provided warranty for a period of 2 years which has expired and thus, no case made out against them.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 ,2, & 3, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.        Tata Motors Ltd. (OP-4) have examined Shri M.K. Bipin Das, Manager (Law), who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.

          Complainant and other OPs did not file evidence inspite of opportunity.   

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Tata Motors Ltd. (OP-4) as the complainant and other OPs did not appear to argue and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Tata Motors Ltd. (OP-4) that complainant have not filed any evidence on record to substantiate the allegations put in the complaint. 

          From perusal of the record, it is noticed that complainant have not filed any evidence in the form of evidence.  Not only that, he did not appear during the course of proceedings.  The fact that complainant have not adduced any evidence, the contents of the complaint cannot be said to be proved.  That being so, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.                         

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President