Punjab

Nawanshahr

EA/3/2018

Gurpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kasmo Vehiclas Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Tribhawan Sharma

12 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Execution Application No.      :    3 of 2018

Date of Institution                             :    12.03.2018

Date of Decision:                    :    12.02.2019

 

Gurpal Singh Kahlon son of Sh.Chhattarpal Singh Kahlon, Resident of Village Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.                                                                                                     ….Decree Holder

Versus

1. Kosmo Vehicles Private Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Marg, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.
2. Kosmo Vehicles Private Limited, Basti Peer Daad Khan, First Source Xall Centre, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar Presently Near Delhi Public School, G.T. Road, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

…. Opposite party No.2

3. Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business, Unit (PCBU), Mumbai, Pune through authorized signatory.

…. Opposite party No.3/JD

4. Cargo Motors, Chandigarh Road Nawanshahr, through its authorized signatory.

          …Opposite Party No.4

                             (Application U/s 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For DH                                    :         Sh.Tribhuwan Sharma, advocate

For JD No.3                                      :         Sh.Sh.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate  

 

 

ORDER

1. This order will disposed of execution application moved by DH.  The brief facts of the application are that complainant filed a complaint bearing No.199 of 18.12.2012 before this Forum and was decided on 10.09.2013.  Thereafter, OP-3/JD has filed an appeal before Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab on 21.10.2013 and this appeal of JD-3 was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2015.  The DH for compliance of order of this Forum handed over the vehicle in question on 26.12.2015.  Almost three years have passed and OP-3 has failed to comply the order passed by this Forum and prayed that order dated 10.09.2013 may kindly be enforced by OP-3 and be directed to fully comply with the said order with immediate effect and further OP-3 be punished accordingly. 
2. Upon summoning, JD-3 has appeared through counsel.  On 04.06.2018, DH has made statement that on bare look of the car in question, the said car paint has been deteriorated and there are hitting patches available on all over the body of car i.e. front side, back side, right side and left side which is not there when the car was handed over to JDs and there might seems the problem in breaking system, body rust and regarding pick up of the engine while driving. The interior meter car lights also not working and there is no logo on the steering wheel as well as on body of car which is there while handing over the car to JDs.  On the other hand, counsel for JD-3 made statement that he has heard the above said statement of Sh.Gurpal Singh Kahlon – DH and as per instructions of the company – JDs are ready to remove the aforesaid defects of the car in question to the satisfaction of DH and hand over the car to DH. Accordingly, direction was given for compliance of aforesaid statements recorded by both the parties.  Further, on 16.07.2018, it is ordered that learned counsel for JD-3 has made statement that as per instructions of JD No.3, JD No.3 was ready to repair/replace the remaining articles/parts of vehicle in question to the satisfaction of DH-Gurpal Singh, i.e. Fog Lights, Head Light Left Side, Fender Lining, Front Lining, Engine Lining, Mirror Back, Rear Glass Opening machine, Break Pads, back lining, Minor Defects upto Rs.10,000/- if come to notice of DH, subject to availability of articles/parts and thereafter hand over the vehicle to DH.  On the other hands, DH made statement that he has heard the statement of counsel for JD No.3 and accept the same and also ready to take the delivery of vehicle after removal of aforesaid defects at Jalandhar workshop that day, if above said articles repair/replace by JD-3. On 07.08.2018, it is submitted that in compliance of order dated 04.06.2018 and 16.07.2018, the entire repair/defect of the vehicle of DH has been removed/rectified. The vehicle in question is roadworthy as per order under execution passed by this Forum.  The vehicle in question has been brought to this Forum again for delivery of the same to DH.  All the relevant job sheets qua removal of defect of car in question were placed on record. But DH took delivery of vehicle on 10.10.2018.  On 04.01.2019, the DH has submitted that he is not satisfied with removal of defects of vehicle by JD-3 because there is still problem in engine of vehicle as same giving noise at the time when the defect come in this vehicle when consumer complaint filed and its clutch is not working properly. Accordingly, DH was directed to take the vehicle to workshop of JD No.3 and JD No.3 was directed to remove the aforesaid defects of vehicle.  After repair of the vehicle the DH has taken the delivery of the vehicle from JD No.3 on 31.01.2019 and he also stated that there is existing problem in clutch system and break system.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through record very carefully  with valuable assistance of DH and counsel for JD No.3.  During pendency of this application.
4. From invoice dated 02.06.2018, it is transpired that the repair to the tune of Rs.1,13,684.97/- was carried out and vide invoice dated 30.07.2018, repair to the tune of Rs.3,347/- was carried out and vide invoice dated 30.01.2019 repair to the tune of Rs.14,186/- was carried out by JD-3.  In this way, the repair to the tune of Rs.1,31,219.97 was carried by JD No.3 qua vehicle in question.  As per document placed on file, firstly, the DH has taken the delivery of car on 10.10.2018 from JD No.3 and after plying the vehicle about 3 months, DH has submitted that there is existence of problem in clutch system and break system.  On the other hand, each and every defect of the vehicle removed by JD-3 as highlighted by DH. 
5. From perusal of record filed, the JD No.3 had preferred appeal before Hon’ble State Commission on 21.10.2013which was decided on 15.10.2015 and DH has filed this execution application on 12.03.2018, after a gap of period of about 2 years and 5 months.  This gap is caused on the part of DH to enforce the order dated 10.09.2013 after final decision of appeal bearing No.1142 of 2013. DH has alleged that he handed over the vehicle in question to JD-2 on 26.12.2015 and after that DH has miserably failed to received the vehicle from JD-2.
6. During the proceedings of this execution application, the JD-3 has shown that they are ready and willing to remove the defect of the car and defect as highlighted by DH vide order dated 04.06.2018, 16.07.2018, 07.08.2018 and till 31.01.2019 was rectified as per documents available in this case file.  The DH has purchased the car in question on 25.10.2010.  The condition of the car after gap of about 9 years is not similar to the brand new car.
7. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the JD No.3 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of legal expenses to the DH within a period one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. File be indexed and consigned to record room.    

  12.02.2019

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (Kuljit Singh)

Member                         President