Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/70/2016

Tara Gir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovely Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Murgai

24 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   70 of 11.08.2016 

Date of Decision                :   24.07.2017

 

Tara Gir son of Chajju Gir, Village  Sito Majra, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana, at present Quarter No. 8, Tehsil Complex, Nawanshahr.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Lovely  Autos, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr through its Manager/MD/Manager Service.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. (Dismissed as Withdrawn on 12.08.2016)

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Ajay Murgai, Advocate

For OP no.1                            :         Sh. P.S Bakshi, Advocate

For OP no.2                            :         DAW on 12.08.2016.

 

ORDER 

PER S. KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. This complaint filed by complainant against  OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant authorize to his son namely Ranjit Kumar to contest his case on his behalf,  wherein it is alleged that on 29.04.2015, complainant approached to OP no.1 regarding his Maruti Car bearing no. HR 03 B 3606 Model 1997, which was disturbed with the problem of mob oil. OP no.1 is an agency of OP no.2 and car was manufactured by OP no.2. The complainant approached to OPs, then they told him that the block set of engine of his car shall change. As per version of the OPs, complainant had changed the said block of engine on payment of Rs.27,732/-, vide bill no. BR15000124 dated 29.04.2015 from the OPs, in which two years oral warranty was provided by the OPs. The above mentioned car, approximately run O.K for six months and after that the problem persisted again. The complainant described to OP no.1 about the problem of the above said vehicle, but the OPs lingering the same for three months.  Then, in February, 2016, engine of the vehicle was changed by the OPs, but problem was still persisted. After 15 days, OP no.1 denied rectifying the problem, then complainant knocked the door of the  Forum. OP no.1 had violated the Consumer Law, inspite of taken the amount and did not provide the service of the car engine. As such,  instant complaint has been filed with prayer that direction be given to OPs to repair the car of the complainant and Rs.45,000/- as compensation account of mental and economic loss and further Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Ranjit Singh son of the complainant suffered a statement on 12.08.2016.that I do not want to press this complaint against OP no.2 and withdraw the same qua OP no.2
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP no.1and  accordingly OP no.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that  instant complaint is legally not maintainable. The complainant is estopped and debarred from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct, omissions and commissions.  Further, it is alleged that complaint is guilty of concealing true and material facts from the Forum, thus he is not entitled to any claim. On merits, the OP no.1 pleaded that the complainant approached OP no.1 on 28.04.2015 with a problem that his vehicle (Maruti Car) bearing no. HR-03-B-3606 Model 1997 was picking mob oil and job card to this effect was prepared. On checking made by OP no.1, it was detected that there was defect in the head of the engine and due to which the engine required overhauling and accordingly on 30.04.2015, the engine of the vehicle was overhauled by the OP no.1. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a satisfactory condition with a direction to get the vehicle checked from the OPs after every month and the mob oil of the vehicle was required to be changed after vehicle run of 1000 Kms. At the time of handed over the vehicle in question to the complainant the speedometer was at 7501 Kms. The OP no.1 alleged that the complainant failed to get his vehicle regularly checked from OP no.1. When the complainant visited the workshop of OP no.1 on 10.02.2016, the  speedometer of the vehicle was 11250  and the complainant had checked his vehicle from some private mechanic. On checking, it was found that the engine had started heating.  Rest of the averments have been denied by OPs and prayed that complaint is without merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
4. In order to prove complaint, complainant tendered into evidence copy of self declaration Ex.C-1 alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. M.L Sehgal, Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.   
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the file very carefully.
7. As per pleadings of the complainant in para no.2 of the complaint that two years oral warranty provided by OP no.1. The complainant miserably failed to corroborate his pleading by way of any supportive evidence. However, the complainant neither produced on record any expert technician report regarding problem in the engine. However, complainant’s maruti car model is 1997, as per his own pleading mentioned in para no.1 of his complaint. It means that 20 years old vehicle needs to be proper timely repair/service. On checking of the engine, it was detected that there was defect in the head of the engine and required overhauling. As per job card Ex.C-2 dated 29.04.2015, after overhauled engine of the car, the vehicle   in question  is in satisfactory good condition and same was handed over to the complainant with the direction to get the vehicle checked from OP no.1 after every month. The mob oil of the engine was required to be changed after the vehicle completes a run of 1000 Kms, moreover, the complainant failed to get his vehicle regularly checked from the OP no.1.

8.        Apart from above, it reveals that the complainant itself negligent to check the engine timely. As per Ex.OP-2 job card dated 28.04.2015 the mileage of car was  7501. On the other hand, as per Ex.OP-1 dated 10.02.2016, the mileage of the vehicle in question was 11250. The service was done from outside, as per Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-5. From this angle, as per pleadings of the complainant in para no.5, the complainant how can direct OP no.1 to repair the car, when the service done from outside. We have also of the opinion that complainant has brought on the file Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6 and similarly OP no.1 has also brought on the file job card Ex.OP-1 dated 28.04.2015 and job card Ex.OP-5 dated 16.02.2016. It is crystal clear that the service of the vehicle in question done from outside. From this angle, it transpired that as per pleadings of the complainant mentioned in para no.5 of his complaint, the complainant how can seek direction from this Forum OP no.1 to repair the car, when the service done from outside.

9.        As per Ex.OP-1 dated 28.04.2015, when the mileage of the vehicle in question was 7501 and as per Ex.OP-5 dated 16.02.2016 the mileage of the vehicle was 11250 from the gap of 10 months, why the complainant not properly check up the vehicle in question from OP no.1 timely.

10.      In the light of our above discussions, the complainant fails to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1, therefore, complaint of the complainant is without merit and same is hereby dismissed.

11.      Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.      Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

13.      File be indexed and consigned to record. 

 

Dated 24.07.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President