Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/162/2022

RANDHIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAGIC AUTO PVT.LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No.162/22

In the matter of:

	Randhir Singh, S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram, R/o C-6/E, Phase I, Main Budh Bazar Road, Vijay Vihar, Rajapur, Delhi 85	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.           3.	Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Through its Proprietor/Manager, At: 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi   Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., (Maruti Dealer Workshop) Through its Proprietor/Manager At: B-7, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Delhi 93   Maruti Udhyog Ltd., Through its MD/CEO Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurugram 122015, Haryana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

06.02.2018 17.07.2023 02.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Wagon R car on 26.12.2014 from Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant used to get the service of this car one from the authorized service station i.e. Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant was shocked and surprised to know that rusting had started on the wind panel, fuel tank, running board, doors and other parts of the body. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 for the said issue of rusting. However, in the month of December both the Opposite Parties No. 1 and No. 2 refused to make any repair/redressal of his problem of rusting of the car. It is his case that the Opposite Party No. 3 had supplied either some old car or some car of which the material was defective. Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties in the month of January 2018 but no action was taken. Complainant has prayed to replace the car with new one or to refund the purchasing amount along with interest and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed their common written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is stated that the Complainant did not look after the car in proper manner. It is stated that the complaint be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

3. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the warranty of the car had expired in 2016 i.e. after two years of the purchase. It is stated that during the warranty period, no problem/issue of rusting was pointed out ever by the Complainant and the Complainant has raised this issue after the expiry of the warranty. It is stated that the rusting of the car depends on several factors. The painting of the car by it is done in proper manner with due care and cautions. It is stated that the vehicle are painted in batches and the Opposite Party No. 3 did not receive any such complaint from any other buyer. It is stated that the rusting may occur due to raw salt, dust, moisture etc. It is stated that sometimes washing of the vehicle with hard water also results in rusting.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

6. To support their case Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 have filed affidavit of Mr. Sukhdev Singh, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 3 has filed affidavit of Mr. Siddarth Lakhani, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 3 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that in the month of December 2014, he purchased the car in question from Opposite Party No. 1. His case is that in the month of December, he noted that there was rusting on the various parts of the body of his car. It is important to note that neither in his complaint he has disclosed the year in which he noted the rusting of his car nor in his affidavit filed in evidence has mentioned the year when he noted the rusting of his car. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the car was under warranty for two years or 40,000 kms whichever is earlier. The Complainant has not produced anything on record to show that the said rusting was within the warranty period. In the absence of any specific year (Complainant has disclosed month of December in his affidavit and in the complaint), it cannot be said that the rusting started within the warranty period.
9. The case of the Complainant as mentioned in para no. 6 of his complaint is that he was supplied either an old car or the car the body of which was made with defective material. The onus to prove this fact relies upon the Complainant. However, the Complainant has not led any evidence to support this contention. Therefore, this assertion of the Complainant cannot be believed.
10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 02.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)