Haryana

Sonipat

CC/450/2015

Mukesh Kumar S/o Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagmohan Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Gautam

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.450 of 2015.                                            Instituted on:08.12.2015.

                                Date of order:21.07.2016

 

Mukesh Kumar son of Mangat Ram, resident of village Kheri Taga, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Railway road, Ganaur, tehsil Ganaur, Sonepat through its Work Manager.

                                                     …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Sanjay Gautam    Advocate for complainant.      

Sh. Sanjay Kankarwal, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased one  new Maruti Omni Van from the respondent and got it registered vide registration no.HR42C/9927.  Within two months of the purchase of the said vehicle, the right side shocker (strut Aggy Suspension R/L) started creating problem.  However, it was replaced on 19.6.2015 by the respondent.  On 13.7.2015, the said vehicle started creating noise automatically and the complainant saw that near the vehicle, large quantity of engine oil was spread on the road.  The complainant brought his vehicle to the respondent and it was found that the block of the engine has brust and connected rod of the engine has been broken and this all has happened due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant on 18.7.2015 complained the respondent through e-mail to repair the vehicle, but of no use.  The complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending the amount of Rs.17500/- from the respondent.   Thereafter, the complainant has requested the respondent to refund the said amount, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that the vehicle in question is an accidental vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the warranty, after the accident, the warranty period has been lapsed.  The complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy by installing CNG form outside local mechanic.  The vehicle was went in the deep water and due to that, the engine of the vehicle was damaged and the same was repaired.  The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The respondent has repaired the vehicle and has rightly charged Rs.17500/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant is, thus, not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that on 13.7.2015, the vehicle of the complainant started creating noise automatically and the complainant saw that near the vehicle, large quantity of engine oil was spread on the road.  The complainant brought his vehicle to the respondent and it was found that the block of the engine has brust and connected rod of the engine has been broken and this all has happened due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant on 18.7.2015 complained the respondent through e-mail to repair the vehicle, but of no use.  The complainant got his vehicle repaired by spending the amount of Rs.17500/- from the respondent.   Thereafter, the complainant has requested the respondent to refund the said amount, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the vehicle in question is an accidental vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the warranty, after the accident, the warranty period has been lapsed.  The complainant has also violated the terms and conditions of the warranty policy by installing CNG form outside local mechanic.  The vehicle was went in the deep water and due to that, the engine of the vehicle was damaged and the same was repaired.  The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the vehicle.  The respondent has repaired the vehicle and has rightly charged Rs.17500/- from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The complainant is, thus, not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          In support of its case, the respondent has placed on record the document Annexure R-1 which shows that CNG kit was fitted in the vehicle from outside mechanic and water logging in engine.

          This fact is corroborated by the document Annexure C9 placed on record by the complainant himself and bare perusal of this document shows that CNG kit was fitted in the vehicle from outside and water logging was found in the engine and this document also bears the signature of Mukesh Kumar, the present complainant.  So, in our view, the complainant himself is negligent as the vehicle was dipped in the water which does not cover the warranty.  The complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrongs.  The respondent cannot be held liable for the lapses on the part of the complainant himself.  The respondent has rightly charged the amount of Rs.17500/- from the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the aforesaid amount from the respondent.  Thus, in our view, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the present case with no order as to costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 21.07.2016