Haryana

Kurukshetra

47/2017

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnal Motors - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Morthala

21 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.47 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 17.02.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:21.01.2019.

Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Pawan Kumar, r/o House No.145, Babain, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. 156/2, Industrial Area, Kurukshetra through its Manager/authorized person.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon through its Manager. 

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. R.K.Morthala, Advocate, for the complainant.

                Op No.1 in person.   

                Sh. Pitamber Saini, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sandeep Kumar against Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd. and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Maruti S-Cross Delta Car bearing registration No.HR-78B-5280 from the Ops.  It is alleged that in the month of Mary, 2016 the complainant was going from Babain to Village Sangore and on the way, due to technical defect in the brakes of said car, the complainant lost control over the same and it struck against a tree and in the said accident, the car was badly damaged.  It is further alleged that the complainant got repaired the said car from the Op No.1 and a bill to the tune of Rs.2,03,725/- dt. 14.05.2015 was prepared.  The said car was insured with the insurance company and that amount was paid by the insurance company to the Op No.1.  It is further alleged that again, the brakes of car developed fault and the complainant took the car to Op No.1 on 20.05.2016 and a sum of Rs.860/- was charged by the Op No.1 from the complainant.  It is further alleged that the said car is still having defect in the brakes.  The Op No.2 has also issued service circular No.D-26/2016 dt. 19.05.2016 mentioning that few cases of brake fluid seepage was reported in S-cross vehicle from rear brake caliper assv. based on feed back market action (Service Campaign) has been planned as given in the circular.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the brakes of the car with the new one and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant has given a totally false story regarding the cause of accident in the complaint.  The actual story has been specified by him at the time of making the insurance claim.  He has blamed the light of oncoming car which blinded the driver and he lost control over the vehicle and struck a tree; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, it is specifically denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the car or the brakes ever developed any problem or that any amount was charged for repairing the brakes etc.  The amount of Rs.806/- alleged to have been paid pertains to the bill dt. 14.05.2016.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has impleaded the Op No.2 without any reason, cause of action or justification.  The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.  The complainant has failed to disclose any specific cause of action in the present complaint against the Op.  The complainant is not a consumer of the answering Op as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P.Act, 1986.  The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods (car)/accidental repairs nor hire any service for consideration with the answering Op.  The complainant without any reason or cause of action has impleaded the Op to the present case.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.R1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for the Op No.2 made statement on 29.11.2018 that he does not want to produce any evidence on behalf of Op No.2. 

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  At the time of arguments, the counsel of Op No.1 has placed on file the document Mark-A which shows that the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-78B-5280   is Harmanpreet Singh instead of complainant.  So, the complainant is not consumer of Ops.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:21.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.