Haryana

Karnal

183/2013

Ajay Kumar S/o Magan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Kumar Arun Kumar Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No. 183 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 16.04.2013

                                                               Date of decision:03.06.2016

 

Ajay Kumar son of Shri Magan Singh r/o House no.22, Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Jai Kumar Arun Kumar Pvt.Ltd. Branch opposite Partapur, Police Station, Delhi Road, Meerut (U.P.)

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Mahindra Tower, 3^rd Floor, 2, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi-110066, Tel.011-41220300.

3. P.P. Automotive Karnal G.T. Road opposite New Word Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                      Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                    Sh. Pardeep Gill Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                    Sh. G.P. Singh Advocate for opposite party no.3

 

 ORDER:

 

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was owner of vehicle bearing registration no.HR05-8150, which was purchased by him from opposite party no.3 on 22.10.2011. On 25.11.2012, he alongwith his family had gone to Meerut to attend a marriage. At about 8.30 p.m. when he was driving the vehicle on Meerut–Muzaffarnagar highway, the engine of the same stopped functioning, therefore, he could not attend the marriage and suffered for whole of the night. Next morning, he got towed his vehicle by hiring another vehicle, to the work shop of opposite party no.1, which was authorized service centre of opposite party no.2. Mr., Amit Sharma General Manager (service) told him to leave the vehicle for 10-15 days for the maintenance and repair of the same. Then he returned to Karnal by hiring a car of Rs.5000/-. On enquiry, Mr. Amit Sharma told him that number of parts of the Engine was changed. The vehicle was handed over to him on 4.12.2012, but the service book was lost. Even after replacing a number of parts the problems of engine leakage, smoking and knocking persisted. After a long fight, the opposite party no.3 agreed to change the engine completely. After 36 days he received his vehicle after change of the engine and the opposite party no.2 provided him only Rs.36,000/- as compensation. He was not provided expenses incurred by him for shifting his vehicle from highway to the work shop of opposite party no.1. He was also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/-per day during the period the vehicle remained at service centre of opposite party no.1, the amount spent by him for returning to Karnal by hiring a car from Meerut and Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment suffered by him.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct and that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, because no part of cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

                   On merits, it has been admitted that some problem occurred in the  engine of the vehicle of complainant, which was removed by authorized dealer i.e. opposite party no.1, and some parts of the engine which were under warranty were replaced.  It has been submitted that lateron, the engine of the vehicle was completely changed and thereafter no complaint was reported by the complainant and opposite party no.2 provided Rs.36000/- as compensation/gesture money to the complainant against the problems occurred in the vehicle. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2. It has further been pleaded that the company was not responsible for any act, omission or commission(if any) of the dealers, because the liability of the company is limited to the terms and conditions mentioned in warranty booklet/Owners manual provided to the customers.

3.                Opposite party no.3 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.3 as no negligence on its part has been attributed and that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint against the opposite party no.3.

                   On merits, it has been averred that the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.3 complaining of problems in the engine of the vehicle. Since the engine was having multiple problems, therefore, opposite party no.3 took personal interest into the matter and recommended to the opposite party no.2 – the manufacturer to replace the engine. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 supplied a new engine and the defective engine was replaced. The complainant was also paid a sum of Rs.36000/- @ Rs.1000/- per day for the period of 36 days for which the vehicle remained stranded in the workshop of opposite party no.3. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3 and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.

4.                None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 and exparte proceeding were initiated against it, vide order dated 5.6.2013.

5.                In evidence of the complainant, he tendered his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4.

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Amrit Lal Bamba Ex.OI, affidavit of Mahender Partap Singh Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O5 and Ex.OP2/1 have been tendered.

7.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and have gone through case file carefully.

8.                From the affidavit of complainant and documents Ex. O2 to O4 it is established that some problem developed in the engine of his vehicle while he was going to Meerut on 25.11.2012, he shifted his vehicle to the work shop of opposite party no.1 on the next day and the same was returned to him after repairs on 4.12.2012. It is also admitted fact that the complainant was not satisfied with the repairs of the engine, therefore, he brought his vehicle to the work shop of opposite party no.3, who recommended replacement of the engine and accordingly the opposite party no.2 provided new engine and then the engine of the vehicle of the complainant was replaced. The vehicle remained stranded in the work shop of opposite party no.3 for 36 days and the opposite party no.2 paid Rs.36000/- to the complainant as compensation in that regard.

9.                The complainant has claimed Rs.2500/- for shifting his vehicle from the Meerut highway to the workshop of opposite party no.1, Rs.2500/- per day as compensation for the period during which the vehicle remained at the workshop of opposite party no.1 Rs.5000/- for hiring car from Meerut to Karnal and Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment.

10.              The manufacturer had provided warranty regarding the vehicle as per the warranty condition mentioned in Ex.OP2/A. During warranty period the manufacturer or its authorized service centre was bound to carry out necessary repairs and replace the defective parts of the vehicle. There was no warranty condition that the manufacturer or its authorized service centre would pay the charges for shifting the vehicle to the work shop or the other expenses incurred by the owner of the vehicle. Opposite party no.1 was just authorized service centre of opposite party no.2 and its liability was only to repair the vehicle during warranty period. No liability could be fastened upon opposite party no.1 or the manufacturer regarding the other expenses incurred by the complainant the owner of the vehicle. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 provide remedy to the complainant against defective goods, deficient services and unfair and restrictive trade practice only. The claim of the complainant regarding shifting the vehicle to the work shop of opposite party no.1,  compensation for the period during which the vehicle remained there for repairs, expenses incurred by him for hiring car from Meerut to Karnal and compensation for other harassment suffered by him is not covered under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get compensation as claimed by him.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 03.06.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member