Haryana

StateCommission

A/809/2016

RAJINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LEKH RAJ MOTORS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.DHULL

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     809 of 2016

Date of Institution:     05.09.2016

Date of Decision :      06.02.2017

 

Rajinder Kumar s/o Sh. Jagar Singh, Resident of Village Kurar, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Lekh Raj Motors Private Limited Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana.

2.      General Motors India Private Limited Customer Assistance Centre Plot No.15, Echelon Institutional Area , Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.      United India Insurance Company Private Limited, Karnal Road, Kaithal.

4.      Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Chandigarh through its Regional Manager, Resident of SCO 145-146, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri J.P. Dhull, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sunil Polist, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Shri B.R. Madan, Advocate on behalf of Shri Satpal Dhamija,  Advocate for respondent No.4.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated August 4^th, 2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the complaint was dismissed.

2.                Rajinder Kumar-complainant/appellant, purchased a car (Chevrolet Beat Diesel), bearing Registration No.HR-99 TP-7261 on April 11^th, 2012 from Lekh Raj Motors Private Limited-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, that is, the authorised dealer of General Motors India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (manufacturer) for Rs.5,20,476/- vide receipt (Exhibit C-1). The car was insured with The United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party No.3.

3.                The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 had assured that the car would give the mileage of 25 Kilometers Per Litre (Kmpl) but it gave the mileage of 15 Kmpl.  It was further alleged that the car was having problem of overheating and giving smoke. The complainant got the car repaired several times but the defect could not be rectified. Thus, the complainant has sought replacement of the car with new one or to refund the cost of it, that is, Rs.5,20,476/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization; Rs.1.00 lac compensation and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite party No.1 in its written version stated that the complainant did not maintain the car as per service schedule and thus violated the terms and conditions of warranty. As and when the car was brought to its workshop for repair/service, the same was done to the satisfaction of the customer.

5.                The opposite party No.2 in its separate written version also denied the allegations of the complainant. It was stated that less mileage is not a manufacturing defect. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The opposite party No.3 – the Insurance Company stated that the defect or mechanical breakdown was not covered under the insurance policy.

7.                Indisputably, the car was purchased by the complainant on 11^th April, 2012 and complaint was filed on June 12^th, 2014, that is, after 2 years and 2 months alleging it having manufacturing defect. By that time, the car had covered more than 34818 Kms.  Prior to that as and when the car was brought to the opposite party No.1 for service/repair, the same was done to the entire satisfaction of the customer/complainant. Reference in this respect is made to Retail Invoices/ Satisfactory Vouchers Exhibits C-5, C-7, C-8, C-11, C-13, C-17 to C-19, C-24 and Exhibit OP1/C, OP1/E, OP1/E, OP1/G and OP1/I. The complainant has not led any evidence to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.

8.                Otherwise too, the fuel consumption of vehicle depends upon various factors like driving habits, road condition, adequate maintenance of the vehicle, quality of the fuel, air pressure in the tyres and length of journey etc. Bad driving habits, that is, continuously putting left foot on clutch, not tuning off ignition at red light, sudden acceleration and air conditioner on at time of ignition, may be the reasons of low mileage. Controlled and moderate speed driving helps a fewer brakes which helps in maintaining fuel efficiency. Besides, the recommended service schedule as per the guidelines of manufacturer helps to keep the car in good condition. Periodic servicing including changing of engine oil, oil filter, spark plugs, fuel filter etc help in best mileage of the vehicle.  It is not the case of the complainant that in the above stated standard conditions the car gave low mileage. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that the car was giving low mileage.  Even during the pendency of complaint before the District Forum, the car was got inspected from a qualified engineer/Works Manager of Haryana Roadways, Kaithal on November 23^rd, 2015. The Works Manager submitted report dated 26^th November, 2015 which reads as under:-

“1.     Gearbox housing was broken from underneath, but it seems that it has been broken not because of any collision/accident.

2.      There was no oil in the gearbox. Axle from left side was dislocated from its place. Due to which vehicle was not roadworthy.

3.      The battery of vehicle was found dead.

4.      The electronic meter of car shows a warning sign which depicts vehicle needs major repairs.

5.      Vehicle was ejecting white smoke, it seems that engine & fuel pump were malfunctioning.

6.      The paint and body of vehicle was found O.K.”

 

 9.               From the above said report it is established that the car was not properly maintained by the complainant.  

10.              In view of the above, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

11.              Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.  

 

Announced 06.02.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL