Complainant Sham Sunder Verma has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties either to replace the defective parts or car in question and to remove the defects and make his car defect free. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties alsongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a car Toyota Crysta from opposite party no.1 for Rs.24.20 lacs approximately on 28th July 2016. After purchasing the car, the abovesaid vehicle started creating problems while plying as the Rooter, Rim and Tyre of the car in question started bubbling and due to these defects in the vehicle there always remained a fear/damage of Tyre bursting due to manufacturing defects in the vehicle. He has next pleaded that he approached the opposite party no.1 and 3 and requested for repair or replacement of the tyres, rooter and Rim etc, and they told him that he should come when the Tyre of his vehicle will burst. Not only this, they also used indecent words and unparliamentarily language against him who is having a good reputation in the society. He asked the opposite parties no.1 and 3 thrice to remove the defects from his car or replace the defective parts on account of which the vehicle is creating problems but they did not listen him. A legal notice dated 2.8.2017 was issued to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have neither admitted his claim nor given any reply of the notice. Hence this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that Hon'ble Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint; the present complaint is legally not maintainable in the present Commission and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that   when the complainant raised issue of bubbling of tyre, the opposite party immediately did wheel alignment and balancing under warranty to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter the complainant did not raise any dispute regarding bubbling of tyres of the vehicle. The vehicle was thoroughly checked by the team of opposite party and did not found any problem with the car or any manufacturing defect. It was further submitted that the problems like bubbling of car is directly concerned with the driving conditions of the car or with the manner how driver drives the car and has no concerned with any defect much less manufacturing defects. Even otherwise, there is no issue in the vehicle of the complainant and he is undue demanding replacement of the tyres which carry no defect. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.     Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that  Hon'ble Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint; the present complaint is legally not maintainable in the present Commission; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against opposite party no.2 as there is no efficiency in services or negligence on the part of the opposite party no.2; the complainant  is stopped by his own acts, conducts from filing of present complaint against the opposite party and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits,it was submitted that  as per information of opposite party no.3   when the complainant raised issue of bubbling of tyre, the opposite party no.3 immediately did wheel alignment and balancing under warranty to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter the complainant did not raise any dispute regarding bubbling of tyres of the vehicle. The vehicle was thoroughly checked by the team of opposite party no.3 and did not found any problem with the car or any manufacturing defect. It was further submitted that the problems like bubbling of car is directly concerned with the driving conditions of the car or with the manner how driver drives the car and has no concern with any defect much less manufacturing defects. Even otherwise, there is no issue in the vehicle of the complainant and he is undue demanding replacement of the tyres which carry no defect. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.     Opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that  Hon'ble Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint; the present complaint is legally not maintainable in the present Commission; ; the complainant   has filed present complaint with manipulated or twisted facts which are not permissible under the law and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that  as per information of opposite party   when the complainant raised issue of bubbling of tyre, the opposite party  immediately did wheel alignment and balancing under warranty to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter the complainant did not raise any dispute regarding bubbling of tyres of the vehicle. The vehicle was thoroughly checked by the team of opposite party no.3 and did not found any problem with the car or any manufacturing defect. It was further submitted that the problems like bubbling of car is directly concerned with the driving conditions of the car or with the manner how driver drives the car and has no concern with any defect much less manufacturing defects. Even otherwise, there is no issue in the vehicle of the complainant and he is undue demanding replacement of the tyres which carry no defect. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs 

6.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit.

7.      Alongwith the written statement ld.counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh.Jatinder Kumar Gupta, Chairman ANR Motors.

8.         Written arguments have not been filed by the parties.

9.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

10.     It has been alleged by the complainant in the present complaint that the opposite party no.1 & 3 has not removed the defects in the car Tyota Crista purchased by him from opposite party no.3.

11.    Copy of R.C., Sale Invoice and Insurance Policy have been placed on record alongwith the complaint. Complainant made allegations that the said car developed a defect regarding bubbling while driving due to rooter, rim and  tyres and it has been transpired that opposite parties have replaced the tyres etc. to some other customers.

12.      Opposite parties in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that the said car has been thoroughly checked and found no manufacturing defect but the wheel alignment and balancing was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter they have not received any such complaint from complainant side.

13.     Ld.counsel for the opposite parties has also moved an application dated 18.5.2018 for deleting the name of Joginder Kumar Gupta (Opposite party no.1) from array of opposite parties.

14.    The complainant in their reply to the above application stated that it is without any merit and hence deserve to be dismissed.

15.    Firstly on going through the contents of the application of opposite party the main point raised was that opposite party no.1 has no concern with selling of vehicle but it is the Sales Manager. But we observe that it carries not weight as the name of the opposite party no.1 has been mentioned as proprietor of the authorized dealer of  Toyota at Amritsar by the complainant from where the vehicle has been purchased.

16.     So we find no merit in the application of opposite party dated 18.5.2018 for deleting the name of Joginder Kumar Gupta (opposite party no.1) from the array of opposite party. Hence, the said application is liable to be dismissed.

17.     From the above details of the complaint, it has been observed that complainant has neither produced any evidence of expert report nor any other cogent evidence in proof of defects in the said car and further non removal of the defects in the said vehicle. Complainant has also failed to prove it as manufacturing defect. Moreover, as stated by opposite parties, they have once set the defects right to the satisfaction of the complainant and thereafter no such defect has been reported to them. The complainant has also not placed any document on record against the claim of opposite parties.

18.      So we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint.

19.      In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint alongwith application of opposite party dated 18.5.2018 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

20.        The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

21.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

January 18, 2023                                                 Member

*MK*