DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Dal Chand, H.No.573, Amrawati Enclave, Near NH-22 Highway District Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

KLG Hyundai, 181/3-B, Ind. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh Near Tribune Chowk.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: None for the complainant

                        Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the OP

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Surender Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying therein that the reliefs, as deemed proper, be given to the complainant for the deficiency in service of the opposite party. 

2.                           In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hyundai Santro car bearing registration No.HR49-B-2070.  It had warranty of two years which was later on extended for four years upto 18.3.2012 or upto 80000 kms., whichever is earlier.  According to the complainant, some defect erupted in the disc brake. So, he went to the opposite party.  The opposite party however repaired the defective part instead of replacing the same with a new one and thereafter handed over the car to him.  It has further been pleaded that after a few days, the car again started giving the same trouble. So, he again approached the opposite party but it refused to repair the car free of cost and demanded repair charges, despite the fact that the complainant told it that the car is within warranty of four years.  In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed.

3.                           In the reply filed by the opposite party it has been pleaded that the car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party on 3.11.2011 with some problem of noise from the front side.  On that day, the car had covered a distance of 34234 kms.  The complainant was told that normal wear and tear are not part of the warranty and that he shall be liable to pay the charges but the complainant refused to pay.  It has been pleaded that after the filing of the present complaint the complainant again came to it on 10.12.2011 and got the vehicle repaired free of cost to his satisfaction and signed the satisfaction note (R-3) to this effect. It has further been pleaded that on that day the complainant was only charged Rs.1,050/- for the consumable parts and no labour charges were taken from him.  According to the opposite party, the complainant did not visit the opposite party thereafter with any further complaint. 

                   In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, the car of the complainant was repaired free of cost, within the period of warranty. So, the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           On 14.8.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Annexure R-2 is the retail invoice dated 10.12.2011 which shows that the complainant was charged        Rs.1,050/- on account of ‘PAD KIT-FR DISC BRAKE’, NUT-FLANGE’ which, according to the opposite party, were consumable parts and VAT.   A perusal of this invoice further shows that the complainant was not charged any amount for BOOST_PRESS-SENSR, DISC-FR WHEEL BRAKE, and labour and services.  The opposite party has also placed on record Annexure R-3 which is the satisfaction note dated 10.12.2011 signed by the complainant after having test driven the vehicle in question.   It has been argued by the ld. Counsel that the complainant came to it after he filed the present complaint (which was filed on 4.11.2011) and signed the satisfaction note on 10.12.2011.   The complainant did not controvert, by way of filing replication or some evidence, that the satisfaction note was not signed by him or that it was got signed from him under some coercion.  Instead, the complainant did not put in appearance on 14.5.2012 and today, either in person or through his advocate.  In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the grievance of the complainant has been redressed.  

7.                           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.

8.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg