DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.72 of 23.2.2016
Decided on: 13.10.2016
Om Parkash Yadav S/o Sh.Hardayal Yadav, R/o # 545-C, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Hira Automobiles, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Managing Director.
2. Workshop of Hira Automobiles, 13-B, Factory Area, Patiala through its Works Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Pardeep Kumar, authorized representative of
the complainant.
Sh.Mukesh Garg,Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.1.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Om Parkash has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To replace the car with ZDI Plus model car or refund the amount of Rs.9,40,000/- paid by him + Rs.60,000/- spent on accessories
- To pay Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation
- Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 22.10.2015, he purchased car make ERTIGA VDI SHVS MARUTI, bearing registration No.PB-11-BV-6606, for an amount of Rs.9,40,000/-.After some days of the purchase of the car, it started giving problem of leakage. He approached Hira Automobiles Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.1. It suggested him to approach Op no.2.Accordingly he approached Op No.2, who issued job cards retail memos dated 21.12.2015, 29.12.2015, 15.1.2016, 5.2.2016 and 9.2.2016 but no satisfactory reply has been given in these job cards. He requested the O.Ps. time and again for the rectification of the problem of earth leakage of the car but the mechanic could not remove the defect. In this way, he suffered mentally and physically. There is thus, deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op No.1 only. On being put to notice, it appeared and filed its written version having taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable, as the claim of the complainant exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and the complainant has not impleaded Maruti Suzuki India Ltd..On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a car make ERTIGA VDI SHVS MARUTI, vide invoice No.7119678 dated 20.10.2015 from it. It is denied that after some days of purchase of the car, battery of the same started giving leakage issues. It is admitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to its workshop for general check up. It is averred that the complainant got non MGA(Maruti Genuine Accessories) Camera, installed in the vehicle, which affected the battery. After thorough inspection of the car, by the mechanic, the battery of the vehicle was sent for checking and the same was found OK. Thereafter, on the instructions of the complainant, the camera was disconnected. Again on the insistence of the complainant, the mechanic of the O.P. connected the camera. The problem in the battery of the vehicle again occurred. The complainant was advised to get the camera inspected. Lateron, the complainant again visited the workshop but never complained about the aforesaid defect of battery. It is further averred that the company only issues warranty policy to every customer, as per sales procedures, which was also given to the complainant. It is averred that warranty means to provide all kinds of repairs/replacements of components which got defects within warranty period. In this way, if any customer feels that there is any defect in any part of the vehicle then he is entitled to get it replace within the period of warranty without any charges. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the complaint, the representative of the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C1, copy of description of car, Exs.C2 to C6 copies of job cards,Ex.C7 copy of letter, Ex.C8 copy of job card, Ex.C9 copy of Accessories Request Form and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the O.P.No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of M/s Hira Automobiles Ltd.,Exs.OP1 to OP5, copies of Job cards, Ex.OP6 copy of warranty policy and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the representative of the complainant, learned counsel for O.P. No.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. raised the objection that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter because the complainant has prayed for either replacement of the car with a new one or refund of the amount of Rs.9,40,000/- i.e. the price of the car + Rs.60,000/- cost of accessories. He has also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rs.twenty lacs).Thus the relief sought for by the complainant exceeds the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, which does not falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus the complaint may be dismissed solely on this ground.
8. Apparently, in the present complaint, the complainant has sought relief i.e. either for replacement of the car with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.9,40,000/-, paid by him, as price of the car + Rs.60,000/- spent on accessories of the car and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- , which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Rs.20,00,000/-.As per Section 11(1) of the Act, the District Forum can adjudicate upon the matter having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.20,00,000/-In this view of the matter, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant, shall be at liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate Court/Forum, having pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same and to seek condonation of delay, if any, for the time spent by the complainant before this Forum as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act,1963. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room .
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
DATED: 13.10.2016
