Haryana

Ambala

CC/22/2014

HARVINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.B.S MOTORS PRIVATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

23 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.    : 22/2014

                                                          Date of Institution     : 13.1.2014

                                                          Date of decision      : 24.08.2017

Harvinder Pal Singh aged 50 years son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of house No.302, Sector-8, HUDA, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

1. KBS Motors Private Ltd. Village Tepla, Ambala Jagadhari Road, Saha, Disctirct Ambala through Its M.D./Authorized Signatory.  

2.Mohinder and Mohindra Ltd. Automotive Sector, Mohindra Tower, 3^rd floor    Akruli Road Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400101 through its M.D. or authorized Signatory.

 

 ….…. Respondent.

 

               Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   MS . ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                

 

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Parshant Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Vipul Singh, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased the car in question model QUANTO Vide Engine No.HUC-6LI5570 colour while vide invoice No.INVI3A000787 for a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- which was insured with the premium of Rs.18323/- Further submitted that while purchasing the car in question, OP No.1 represented the complainant that it is the car of model 2013 and its manufacturing date is January, 2013 and after delivery of the above noted car in question, when the applicant was going to prepare the Registration documents of the said car, then the applicant came to know that this car in question was of Model 2012, that is the manufacturing date of this car in question was of 2012 instead of 2013, immediately on coming to know this patent defect, complainant approached the OP party No.1 and disclosed this manufacturing defect of date. Thereafter, the OP no.1 changed the car in question of 2012 Model after taking Rs.5000/- as exchanged amount and then delivered new car in question of model quanto, Manufacturing year of 2013, colour black, Engine No.HUC6M21050 vide invoice date/purchase date 15.02.2013 along with sale certificate. Thereafter, the complainant got prepared the registration certificate of new changed vehicle in question and spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the expenses of the document of registration certificate and had to spend sum of Rs.10,000/- on the accessories of the car but the car in question is not working well and its average is very low and the vehicle in question was not giving any satisfaction to the complainant and the applicant further shocked to know that further OP No.1 delivered the new car in question of the manufacturing year of 2012 as when the complainant got an opportunity to check the components of the car in question, then the complainant took a back, after seeing the window Panes glass and engine, both the components of the new car in question display the manufacturing date as 2012 instead of 2013 as the invoice bill was related to date of purchase as 15.02.2013 and in addition to that OP No.1 tampered with the sale certificate in which the date of manufacturing date is shown as January, 2013 although the date of purchase should be as 15.02.2013 in place of year 2013 and the complainant further disclosed this fact to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 felt sorry with folded hand and further assured to change the vehicle and asked the complainant to wait for some times as their case is forwarded to head office in Bombay i.e. with the OP No.2 and OP NO.1 assured the complainant to wait two or three months but after two or three months complainant kept on contacting with the OPs with telephone but OP procrastinated the matter of complainant on one pretext and other pretext during this time the complainant had to waste his energy and precious time for ascertain his case. Finally, the OP flatly refused to oblige the complainant and only offered a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the complainant for his solace and soothe his burning feelings. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs No. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing their separate replies.  OP No. 1 in his written statement submitted that OP No.1 had already disclosed to the complainant at the time of sale of the car that it is of Model December, 2012 but since there was discount on the car of model of December, 2012 in the sale of January, 2013, the complainant willingly purchased the car of Model, 2012 by taking benefit of discount vide Sale Certificate dated 21.01.2013 and the complainant was very much in know since beginning that the vehicle is of model 2012, as he took discount, but lateron the complainant approached the OP No.1 and excused that he needs the vehicle of Model 2013 being having purchase of the vehicle in January, 2013 and in order to make goodwill with the customer, Op No.1 exchanged the car by new one of Model 2013 vide sale certificate dated 15.02.2013 invoice No.INV13A000936. Further submitted that at the time of taking delivery of the car after exchange with another car of Model 2013, the car was having no any problem and moreover, the complainant had not complained about its not working well and average defect and the complainant was fully satisfied with the car purchased by him after replacement. Moreover, the Annexure -5 is photographs of glasses which are of Asai India Glass Co; situated at Rajasthan and Annexure-6 is not photographs of engine and the same is photographs of Air Filter being manufactured by Bosch Company, which is of Germany. So, counsel for OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

                   On the other hand, OP No.2 in his written statement submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable under the CP Act 1986 since there is neither an allegation of any defect in the vehicle nor is there any deficiency in service on the party of the OP No.2. It would be very pertinent to mention here to look into the relation between the replying OP No.2 and its dealers. In this case, OP No.1 purchased the variety of vehicle manufactured by the OP No.2 in bluk quantities and dealers resells them to their own customers. In other works, all the transactions with dealers are on principal to principal basis and the replying OP NO.2 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers. So, there is no privity of contract between the OP NO.2 and ultimate customer of the vehicle as for as the subject vehicle is concerned. Further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service alleged in the complaint. Further submitted that the liability of the OP No.2 is limited to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle that too covered under terms and conditions of the warranty and OP No.2 being manufacturer plays no role or part in any type of insurance. Further submitted that the only liability remains with the company is mentioned in the service booklet/owner’ manual/warranty booklet of the vehicle if there is any manufacturing defect in vehicle or there is any defect mentioned in the warranty terms and conditions. Further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle therefore question of its replacement by manufacturer is out of question and it is also clarified that even if there is any defect in the vehicle during warranty vehicle is not replaced only the defect part is replaced under warranty. So, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-6 and close their evidence. On the other hand Op no. 1 also tendered an affidavit as Annexure RW1-X alongwith documents as Annexure RW1/1 to RW1/11 and closed the evidence as well as counsel for OP No.2 has also tendered an affidavit as Annexure R2/Y and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

5.                It is averred by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant had purchased the car in question model Quanto for a sum of Rs.6,73,000/- vide invoice Annexure C-2  while purchasing the car, OP representing to the complainant that it is a car of model 2013 but after delivery of the above said car, complainant came to know that car in question was a model of 2012 instead of 2013. The complainant approached to the OP No.1 and same was changed by the OP No.1 after taking of amount of Rs.5000/- as exchange amount and delivered the car of model 2013 i.e. colour black and OPs issued the sale Certificate in which purchase date i.e. 15.02.2013 and model of the vehicle in question shown January, 2013 as per Annexure C-4. Complainant averted that he  had registered the vehicle in question from the Registration Authority and he came to know that the components of the car in question i.e. window panes glass and Engine are of the manufacturing year of 2012 instead of year 2013 as the invoice bill vide A-4 was related to date of purchase as 15.02.2013 and in addition to that the OP No.1 tempered with the A-4 i.e. Sale certificate in which the date of manufacturing date is shown as January, 2013 although the date of purchase should be as 15.02.2013 in place of year 2013.

                   After perusal of the file that the complainant has placed on record for proving the facts that the component mentioned above i.e. window panes glass and Engine is manufacturing year 2012 and he has place on record only the photographs Annexure C-5 and Annexure C-6 but these documents does not reflect that the above said component is related to the vehicle in question rather the OPs taken the stand that Annexure -5 is photographs of glasses which are of Asai India Glass Co. situated at Rajasthan and annexure C-6 is not photographs of engine and the same is photograph of Air Filter being manufactured by Basch Company, which is of Germany.

                   To prove the above said facts that the components mentioned above are of manufactured year 2012, the complainant is duty bound to prove his contention by way of expert report/opinion regarding above said contention. The  complainant also failed to file application under section 13(1)(c) of C.P. Act is relevant in present case which says “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which conanot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case in the absence of cogent evidence and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 24.08.2017                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

 

                                                                       (ANAMIKA GUPTA )

                                                                                            Member