Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 67.
Instituted on : 25.01.2017.
Decided on : 01.07.2019.
Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Diwan Singh resident of village Mandothi Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Lohchab Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Rohtak Tower, Delhi Bypass, Rohtak through its Manager/Incharge.
- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400039 through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Yashvir Dahiya, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a car Model Verito VIBE D4 Diesel K9K BS4 SM from respondent No.1 on 28.01.2014 and the same is bearing registration No.HR-13H-9087. That respondent no.2 is manufacturer of this vehicle and respondent no.1 is authorized dealer. That after about four months, it was found that there was problem in the wheels and engine and it was proved that the wheels were defective and due to heat, the engine was not in working condition. Therefore, the complainant made first complaint in the month of June 2014 and the vehicle was taken to workshop of the respondents but after repair, there was some problem in the vehicle. There was starting problem also and as such complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties and the service station kept the vehicle for about 2-3 months every time but till today, the defects could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. That complainant spent an amount of Rs.44000/- on the repair of his vehicle. That there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or to pay the cost of vehicle but the same was refused by the opposite parties. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the vehicle with new one or to pay the cost of vehicle i.e. Rs.670000/- and compensation of Rs.200000/- for causing mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that it is wrong that the vehicle in question was having any problem in the wheels and engine as alleged. That it is wrong that wheels of said vehicle were defective and due to heat, the engine was not in working condition. That the vehicle in question was firstly came for first free service on dated 14.03.2014 but the complainant did not made any complaint pertaining to wheels and engine as alleged. Secondly, on dated 20.05.2014 the vehicle came for second free service, thirdly on dated 23.06.2014 for running repair. Further on dated 06.04.2015 vehicle came for major running repair, on 26.08.2015 for service, on 14.09.2015 for running repair but no such complaint was made by the complainant. That on 28.10.2015 the vehicle came for running repair and only this time firstly the complainant made complaint of overheat which was removed. Thereafter, vehicle came on various dates upto 2017 for running repair but no such complaint was made. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that respondent no.1 is not the agent of answering opposite party. That the answering respondent is not liable for any act, omission, assurance or commission done by the dealer, if any. The commitment, if any, made by the opposite party no.1 has been made in his personal capacity and answering respondents are not bound by such type of commitment. On merits, it is submitted that the warranty period was for the period 28.01.2014 to 27.01.2017. That complainant lastly visited the authorised station of answering respondent on 21.01.2017(6 days prior to the expiry of the warranty condition) and availed benefit under warranty conditions and now has filed the false and frivolous complaint on 25.01.2017 i.e. 2 days prior to the expiry of the warranty condition. That the complainant brought the vehicle to the authorized service station for minor wear and tears, which are bound, while the vehicle moves on the road and answering respondent standing to its commitment repair/replace the parts as per the warranty condition. That as per the speedo meter reading as on 21.01.2017 i.e. after a span of 3 years approximately, vehicle in question was moved 68316 KM, if going mathematically, it moved 62 KM per day, which itself speaks about the factum that there is no manufacturing defect in his vehicle in question and same has been used to its potential. Moreover, till today, the complainant has also not produced any technical Expert’s report in support of his allegation about manufacturing defect. On this ground itself, the complaint is liable to be rejected. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 28.11.2018 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has
tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/2 and closed his evidence on dated 28.02.2019. ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/2 and closed his evidence on dated 28.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that vehicle was brought on 21.03.2015 for accidental repair. At that time the vehicle had already run 40114 KM. The complainant first time made a complaint about front side noise on dated 14.09.2015 when the vehicle had already run 45394 KM. Second time complaint was made on 02.11.2015 for front side ghad ghad noise. On 16.12.2015 again the vehicle was brought for running repair and at that time no complaint regarding front side noise was made. Again on 31.03.2016 compliant was made about front side noise when the vehicle had run for 57490 KM. On 17.05.2016 complainant made complaint about engine noise and on 14.06.2016 no complaint was made regarding the noise and the vehicle had run for 58701 KM. Perusal of the alleged history of the vehicle itself shows that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of the respondents for running repair, minor repairs and accidental repair and same has been used to its potential. Moreover, till today, the complainant has also not produced any technical Expert’s report in support of his allegation about manufacturing defect. We have also perused the law relied upon by ld. counsel for the complainant in 2014CJ212 (NC) titled as Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Tyagi and another and 2014CJ197(NC) titled as Hind Motor(I) Ltd. and another Vs. Lakhbir Singh but the same are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that in the absence of any authenticated report, complainant has failed to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and has also failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. .
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
