| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.462 of 26-08-2016 Decided on 04-12-2017 Jagjit Singh Chahal aged about 73 years S/o Partap Singh R/o H.No.296, Phase-I, Model Town, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Honda Cars Ind. Ltd., Plot No.Al, Sector 40-41, Sujanpur, Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201306, through its Director/Manager/C.M.D. 2.Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Deep Honda, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Incharge. 3.Anoop Mehra, Ganeral Manager, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Deep Honda, Mansa Road, Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3: Not Summoned. For opposite party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Jagjit Singh Chahal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Honda Cars Ind. Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one car Honda Image 1.5 SMT Model Diesel from opposite party No.2 and paid it full and final payment of Rs.7,30,000/-. The car was delivered to the complainant on 31.3.2016. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of the car, opposite party No.3 Anoop Mehra, General Manager and Mrs.Mehar Sekhon, Asstt. Sales Manager assured the complainant that they will provide the genuine Honda fog lamps, which have been using and installing in the upper model of the car by Honda company itself, to the car of the complainant in accessory in the same sale amount without charging any other amount. They further disclosed the complainant that the fog lamps are not available and assured him to come after one week, as they will install the genuine Honda fog lamps in the car. It is further alleged that due to genuine part of the car, the complainant left other accessory, which was given to him by opposite parties with the car in the sale amount. He opted to install the fog lamps in his car instead of other accessory. It is further case of the complainant that after a week, he went to the showroom of opposite parties for installing genuine Honda fog lamps in his car, but they were delaying the matter intentionally on one or other reason. After 2.5 months and approaching again and again, opposite parties were ready to install the fog lamps in the car. They called the complainant to their showroom for installing the fog lamps and asked him to leave the car because they will take one day time for installing the fog lamps. On this assurance, he left the car in the showroom of opposite parties. On next day, he reached in the showroom of opposite parties in the evening and met opposite party No.3, he assured the complainant that the car is ready and he has installed the genuine Honda fog lamps in the car and fulfilled its commitment, which was committed at the time of delivering of the car. As per complainant, on the next day, he found that the switch of fog lamps continuously light up. He searched out and found that the fog lamps are not genuine part of Honda fog lamps as committed by opposite parties and they are china made. It is further alleged that the complainant approached opposite party No.3 and complained regarding non genuine of fog lamps. Opposite party No.3 admitted that the fog lamps installed in car of the complainant are not genuine and they have been purchased from the local market. Opposite party No.3 misbehaved with the complainant and asked to pay more money for genuine fog lamps. The car of complainant is still lying in the showroom of opposite parties for more than 20 days. On 18.7.2016, the complainant got issued the legal notice to opposite parties. After receiving the notice, opposite parties requested the complainant to take back the car and they will sort out the matter after few days. On this assurance, the complainant took back the car from the showroom of opposite party No.1, but opposite parties did not change the sub standard fog lamps with the genuine part of fog lamps. It is also alleged that the sub standard fog lamps have not been fitted in the proper manner in the car and fixed as a jugad. The wire used in fitting the fog lamps is also temporary wire, which can cause short circuit at anytime. The car can also catch fire and huge incident can happen with the car. It is also alleged that the fog lamps are not working in the proper manner. The complainant many times rushed to the showroom of opposite parties, they by moving the temporary wire here and there cured the defect of the sub standard fog lamps, without giving any job sheets to the complainant regarding repair of sub standard fog lamps. The switch are fitted in the dashboard of the car, in a worst manner. It has deteriorated the condition of the car and it look like as a jugad. As per complainant, he got checked the car from D.S. Auto Elect and Engg. Works (Regd.) Old Bus Stand Bathinda on 24.8.2016. The proprietor of the workshop opined that fog lamps fitted in the car are not genuine part i.e. sub standard part and their fitting are not in a proper manner. It is also alleged that due to the act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for these sufferings. He has also claimed entitlement to replace the genuine Honda fog lamps instead of China made fog lams and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint. After hearing learned counsel for complainant, notice to only opposite party No.2 was issued. Opposite party No.2 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant is not 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(d) of 'Act'. The allegations in the complaint reveal that no consideration has been paid qua the fog lamps. As such, it is beyond the purview and scope of Section 2(d) of 'Act'. The complainant has no cause-of-action to file this complaint qua opposite party No.2. The intricate and contentious questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence. It cannot be decided by way of summary jurisdiction. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The complaint is a bundle of mis-statements and false allegations and devoid of any merit. Last legal objection is that the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, all the material averments are denied. It is denied that opposite party No.1 and Mrs.Mehar Sekhon ever assured the complainant to provide genuine Honda fog lamps as alleged.It is further mentioned that no such assurance was ever made to the complainant. Moreover opposite parties are confined only to sale of the car in question. The allegations regarding fitting of China made fog lamps instead of Honda fog lamps by opposite parties are also denied. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 has no concern with the fog lamps. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C1); photographs, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and Ex.C15 to Ex.C17); his affidavit dated 6.1.2017, (Ex.C9); affidavit of Rabinder Singh dated 6.1.2017, (Ex.C10); report, (Ex.C11); affidavit of Darshan Singh dated 6.1.2017, (Ex.C12); photocopy of postal receipts, (Ex.C13); affidavit of Ishwar Sharma dated 8.2.2017, (Ex.C14) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Anup Mehra dated 17.7.2017, (Ex.OP2/1); photocopy of satisfaction note, (Ex.OP2/2); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.OP2/3) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant purchased the car from opposite party No.2. The invoice, (Ex.OP2/3) also proves this fact. The version of the complainant is that opposite party No.2 offered fog lamps, but same were not provided on the date of purchase. After repeated efforts, opposite party No.2 provided the fog lamps to the car of the complainant, but same were not genuine. These were also not properly fitted. The complainant has got served legal notice, copy of same is Ex.C1. He has also placed on record copy of photographs, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C8) to prove that fog lamps were also not fitted properly. He has also tendered into evidence report of mechanic Darshan Singh, (Ex.C11) with his affidavit, (Ex.C12) to prove that he checked the car and found fog lamps were not genuine parts and they were substandard and their fitting was not in proper manner. The complainant has also produced on record affidavit of Ishwar Sharma, (Ex.C14). He was former electrician with opposite party No.2. He has also deposed on oath that fog lamps were not having Honda part. These were duplicate and these were not installed properly. Therefore, evidence produced by the complainant sufficiently proves that opposite party No.2 provided fog lamps, but not genuine and these were not fitted in proper manner. Next submission of learned counsel for complainant is that some inference is to be drawn from the attending circumstances also. Before evidence, the complainant moved an application for directing opposite party No.2 to produce original file prepared at the time of purchase of vehicle, but original file was not produced. It was rather mentioned that there is no such original file maintained as alleged, but in evidence, opposite party No.2 has produced on record copy of satisfaction note, (Ex.OP2/2) to prove that the complainant has expressed his satisfaction at the time of taking delivery. This fact proves that opposite party No.2 has maintained the original file, but it has intentionally denied from this fact. Had opposite party No.2 produced the original file before this Forum, it could have been determined that opposite party No.2 offered the fog lamps to the complainant, because as per complainant, this fact is mentioned in the original file maintained by opposite party No.2. As such, the complaint be accepted as prayed for and claimed reliefs be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has submitted that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Act' so far dispute regarding fog lamps is concerned. He has pleaded that opposite party No.2 offered the fog lamps without charging any other amount. It is also not case of the complainant that opposite party No.2 has charged the price of the fog lamps in the price paid for purchase of the car. Therefore, the alleged service was not for consideration. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that the complainant is also taking contradictory stand. In Paragraph 2 of complaint, he has also pleaded that he left other accessory, which was given to him and opted to install the fog lamps instead of other accessory. As per this part of pleading, the complainant has preferred the fog lamps in exchange of other accessory given by opposite party No.2 with the car. He has not disclosed what particular accessory was offered by opposite party No.2, which he left for getting fog lamps. This fact also proves that he has set-up false and self contradictory claim. Next submission of learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has also tendered into evidence affidavit of Ishwar Sharma, (Ex.C14), but the version of Ishwar Sharma in his affidavit is also not in consonance to the version of the complainant. The complainant has pleaded in Paragraphs 3 and 4 that opposite party No.2 called him to its showroom for installing the fog lamps and he left the car in the showroom for getting installed the fog lamps. On next day, the complainant was informed that the car is ready and opposite party No.2 has installed the genuine Honda fog lamps. On next day, he found that switch of fog lamps is continuously light up and fog lamps are not genuine as committed by opposite party No.2. As per this version, the complainant came to know on third day of leaving car with opposite party No.2 and on next day of getting back the car with fog lamps. Ishwar Sharma in his affidavit deposed that at same time, the complainant has raised the objections, but official of opposite party No.2 did not listen to him. Therefore, as per version of Ishwar Sharma, the complainant came to know regarding duplicate fog lamps and he raised objections at that time. This version is contrary to the complainant's version. Therefore, this affidavit has no value. Similarly, affidavit of Darshan Singh coupled with his report, (Ex.C11) will not prove the case of the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that opposite party No.2 provided any duplicate fog lamps for consideration. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. Next submission of learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is that regarding maintainability of original file, whole version is to be looked into. The prayer of complainant was that the original file prepared at the time of purchase of vehicle be got produced from theopposite party No.2 and version of opposite party No.2 was that no particular of documents sought to be produced is given and application is vague. There is no such original file maintained as alleged. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has nowhere pleaded that no document is retained or maintained. Opposite party No.2 has simply mentioned that the complainant has not given particular of documents sought to be produced. Therefore, simply by denying from maintenance of alleged file, no inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant's side. When the complainant has failed to prove his case by affirmative evidence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the car from opposite party No.2 on 31.3.2016. This fact is not denied. He has pleaded that opposite party No.2 offered fog lamps free of cost, but there is no such reference in the invoice, (Ex.OP2/3). He has also not produced any other evidence to prove that opposite party No.2 has offered genuine fog lamps free of cost. The version of complainant regarding this offer is also little contradictory. In the complaint, it is also pleaded that the complainant left other accessory given by opposite party No.2 with the car and opted to install the fog lamps instead of other accessory. As per this version, opposite party No.2 gave some other accessory, but the complainant has not disclosed, which particular other accessory was given. He has also mentioned that he opted for fog lamps instead of other accessory. Therefore, as per this version, opposite party No.2 has not offered fog lamps free of cost, but in lieu of other accessory. The main stress of the complainant in this complaint is that opposite party No.2 offered the fog lamps free of cost. Of-course, he has produced on record copy of service invoice to prove that in this document, it is mentioned that outside alloy wheel fitted, but there is no reference in this document regarding fog lamps. From this fact alone, it cannot be inferred that opposite party No.2 has provided duplicate fog lamps to the complainant. The complainant has also tried to get supports from the application moved for production of documents and reply of opposite party No.2. In the application, prayer of the complainant was directions to opposite party No.2 to produce the original file prepared at the time of purchase of vehicle. The version of opposite party No.2 was that no particular of documents sought to be produced has been given and application is vague. There is no such file maintained as alleged. In the written version also, opposite party No.2 has denied for maintaining any file as alleged by the complainant and opposite party No.2 had not denied from retaining other relevant documents. The production of satisfaction note, (Ex.OP2/2) will not lead to inference that opposite party No.2 has withheld any original file maintained by it. The net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, we have no option except to dismiss this complaint. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 04-12-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
