Haryana

Jind

CC/252/2013

Poonam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lekh Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh S.S. Dhillon

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                Complaint Case No :  252of 2013
                                                 Date of Institution   :  09.12.2013
                                                  Date of Decision      : 05.12.216

Poonam w/o Sh. Baljit resident of village Ghogharian Teh. Narwana Distt. Jind.
                                                                              ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Chevrolet, Showroom and Workshop, opposite Brahman Dharamshala, Safidon Road, Jind through its Proprietor.
Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Ltd; showroom and workshop, N.H.65, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its proprietor.
General Motors India Ltd; Customer Assistance Center, Plot No.15, Echelon Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon-122001 through its Managing Director/Responsible person.

                                                                 …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
               SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. S.S. Dhillon Adv. counsel for complainant.
              Sh. Sunil Polist Adv. counsel for OPs No.1&2.    
              Sh. Rajnish Garg Adv. counsel for OP No3.
         
ORDER:

             Brief facts of the  present complaint are that  the complainant  purchased a Chevrolet SAIL U VALS ABS vehicle bearing registration No. HR-32F-5350 from OP No2 & delivery of vehicle was made by OPNo.1 being authorized sub dealer of OP No.2 at Jind & OP No.3 is manufacturing company of the vehicle in question. After purchase of the above said car, the performance was very good for few months but lateron the car has started creating problems and the vehicle was taken for first service with the company agency where the problem of hard shifting of gear box was reported but problem was not rectified by the company staff.  In the month of March 2013, the complainant & her family went  to Jodhpur during vacations & her husband faced non shifting  of gear  problem in her car. Complainant then lodged complaint with OP No.1 against the above mentioned problems whereupon customer care executive of the OP No.3 told the complainant to visit their agency at Jodhpur. Then complainant informed the concerned agency at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) and they sent one mechanic to the complainant who toe the car to the agency. After thorough checking, the mechanic of the agency told that there is some problem in the Gear Box and rectification needs spare and requires 4-5 days to rectify.  The complainant and her family members suffered mental stress and decided to get rectified the above noted car outside and problem occurred was rectified by outside mechanic within few hours. Besides it, the A.C. adjustment knobs also stopped working in March 2013, A.C. radiator also  stopped working in  April,2013 and right side window motor  also damaged in June, 2013  but said  problems  were not removed by the OPs.  In this way, complainant made complaints to OPs firstly in December 2012, March 2013, April 2013, June 2013, September 2013 & October 2013 respectively but of no use. As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are  deficient in not  rectifying  the problem of the car in question and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to  refund Rs.6,50,000/- entire cost of car alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. & to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation   on account of mental pain & agony to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, OPs  appeared through their respective counsels and tendered replies to the complaint. OPs No.1&2 urged in the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form, complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint & this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint whereas on merits, it has been urged that complainant visited only two times till today to  the dealership of answering OPs i.e.  first time for general check-up on 19.1.2013 and second time  on 20.2.2013 for some accidental Job which was rectified and at that  time, no such problem was informed by the complainant. Complainant  is habitual to take service of car outside instead of  from answering OPs, so complainant has violated the terms & conditions of warranty policy.  The complainant herself is at sole fault and there is no deficiency on the part of answering OPs & prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
3.     OP No.3 urged that the problem in Knob of the AC and AC adjustment was reported in the month of March, 2013 with Aravali Autos Gurgaon and the problem was looked into promptly and parts required to be replaced  were replaced with in the warranty conditions.  Further, in the month of June 2013, vehicle was  again taken to Aravali Auto for routine paid service and vehicle was serviced as per scheduled service and the vehicle was put to OK condition to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is denied that complainant ever reported any alleged problem in the gear box to any official of the authorized service centre at Jodhpur, as and when any problem was reported, same was looked into promptly and was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and no manufacturing defect was ever found in the vehicle except minor running repairs.  It has been further urged by OPNo.3 that the vehicle in question moved 38311 Kms upto 21.11.2013 i.e. within the span of 11 months and if there would have been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have performed or moved so much. In fact, the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum since as per record maintained by answering OP, the vehicle in question met with the accident twice and the same was got repaired by the service centre of answering OP on 20.2.2013 & 16.4.2013 and as per warranty policy, once the vehicle met with the accident, the customer has no right to claim warranty and the complainant’s intention is only to change the vehicle, after the vehicle in question met with an accident. Further the complainant has failed to produce expert evidence confirming or supporting any alleged defect. So there is no any  deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party & prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 
4.    To prove his contention, counsel for  complainant tendered  affidavit of complainant as Ex. C-1 alongwith documents as   Ex. C-2 to C-11  and closed the  evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OPs No.1&2 tendered affidavit of  Sh. Varun Mehta, Sales Manager as Ex. OP-1/A alongwith documents Ex. OP-2/A to  Ex. OP-4/A and closed the evidence. OP No.3 did not bother to lead any evidence inspite of availing various opportunities and thus the evidence of OP No.3 was closed by court order.
5.    We have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on file. During the course  of arguments, Counsel for complainant tendered a statement before the Forum that during the pendency of the case, the vehicle in question totally burnt & damaged badly and against this  total loss of the vehicle in dispute, he has received a compensation from the insurance company amounting to Rs.3,90,000/- but he has filed the present case regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle prior to total loss of the vehicle in question and requested for issuing a direction to OPs to compensate  him for harassment and litigation expenses etc. whereas counsel for OPs No.1 &2 argued that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as alleged by the complainant since no any report of any expert has been placed on file by the complainant. Rather complainant herself has violated the terms and conditions of the warranty provided by the OP manufacturing company as she got her vehicle serviced with the OPs only two times i.e. 19.1.2013 and 20.2.2013 as clearly mentioned in the history sheet of the car service placed on file as Ex. OP3/A rather she got serviced her vehicle outside i.e.  beyond the service centre of OP manufacturing company as submitted by complainant herself in para No.4 of the complaint  i.e. at Jodhpur (Rajasthan). So, complainant herself  is at fault & deficient whereas OPs are not deficient on their part. Further, counsel for OP No.3 submitted  that the vehicle in question met with an accident and underwent repairs with their service centre at Aravali Auto on 16.4.2013 and the complainant intends to replace the said car under the garb of said complaint though she has concealed the said facts from the Hon’ble Forum because on bringing this facts in the complaint, she is not entitled for warranty benefits since according to terms of the warranty, once the vehicle met with the accident, the customer has no right to claim warranty. Besides it, Counsel for OP No.3 also argued that complainant has not produced any expert opinion/report qua the problems/defects occurred in the vehicle though the vehicle has moved 38311 KM upto 21.11.2013 within a period of 11 months calculating mathematically @ 114 K.M. per day and if there would have been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle in question would not have moved so much and also placed reliance on the case law titled as Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & another delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 1(2010) CPJ page 235(NC) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Bench that “Onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on complainant- No expert evidence produced to prove manufacturing defect in vehicle-Alleged defects cannot be termed as manufacturing defect- Order of lower Fora set aside”.
6.    After hearing the rival contention of the parties and going through the record placed on file, it is admitted fact on record that no any expert evidence has been produced on file by the complainant to prove his allegations qua manufacturing defect in the vehicle and thus we are of the considered view that complainant has miserably failed to prove his contention. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is  hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced:
                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT    
                                                                                                                                  District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                                                                           Redressal Forum, Jind. 

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                    Member
                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                   Member