Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/615/2017

Sandeep Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

HarminderJeet Singh

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/615/2017
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	30/04/2019

 

Sandeep Walia s/o Sh. Surinder Walia resident of H.No.3262, Police Cooperative Society, Sector 51-D, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Mahindra and Mahindra FES Gate No.4, 2^nd Floor, Engine PU Building, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai-400101 through its Director.

2.     Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. having Head Office at Plot No.182/84, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002 through its Directors.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harminderjeet Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The sum and substance of the allegations are, on 16.9.2015, complainant had purchased a Mahindra XUV 500  vehicle from OP-2, authorised dealer of OP-1 (manufacturer), against consideration of Rs.12,52,858/-. The allegations are, immediately after purchase, the car started creating problems.  The defects like reverse sensors not working, continuous lighting of ABS indicator, problem in starter of the car, unusual noise, creating of four types of different unusual sounds while running, shaking of car at the speed of 70 were pointed out.  These defects were assured to be corrected by OPs, but, the needful was not done even on the second service which was got done on 22.12.2016.  The third service of the car was not got done by the complainant. As such, there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Besides it, another defect pointed out was on 15.7.2017 the complainant tried to start the car, but, it did not start and he had to call the emergency helpline service of the OPs and the complainant remained stuck alongwith his family for almost three hours.  The complainant on 30.8.2017 had visited and requested the OPs to replace the car, but, it was not replaced. Hence, the present consumer complaint with the prayer to replace the car; pay Rs.1,20,000/- for harassment and mental torture alongwith Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.         OP-1 has filed separate written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable; relationship of OP-1 with OP-2 is on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis.  Its case is, there was no defect in the car and moreover the consumer complaint is not accompanied by expert opinion on record.  Further case is, in the second service, three defects have been reported i.e. reverse parking sensor faulty, centre locking siren not working and faulty door open lamp. These defects were cured and these could not be said to be manufacturing defects. The vehicle was under warranty and there was no guarantee furnished.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Similar is the reply furnished by the authorised dealer/OP-2.  Additional reply furnished by OP-2 is there was no defect in the vehicle.  Rather there were minor adjustments which were required to be done and the same were done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant per Annexure R-2/1.  The vehicle was also brought for periodic maintenance like wheel balancing and there was no other defect as made out from the job card Annexure R-2/2. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-1 was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.          Per pleadings of the parties, the highlighted defects were minor in nature i.e. to say reverse parking sensor faulty, centre locking siren not working and faulty door open lamp.  Admittedly, these are not manufacturing defects and rather these were cured the moment these came/brought to the notice of the OPs.  Even the job cards Annexure R-2/1 and Annexure R-2/2 (Colly.) do not show any such manufacturing defects which warrants the replacement of the vehicle. Had there been any manufacturing defects, these could have been pointed out in the job card and repair would have been done to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is not the case that during the warranty period, amount was charged for correction of these defects.  There are no terms and conditions, per record, which shows it was a case of guarantee and not warranty.  Even the consumer complaint was filed nearing completion of two years. 
8.         The complainant in his consumer compliant has pointed out, there were manufacturing defects, but, he had not annexed with the consumer complaint any expert report which shows that there are any manufacturing defects in his vehicle which obstructs its normal functioning.  Not only this, even during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, no prayer was made to get the vehicle mechanically examined from the engineers to show the existence of manufacturing defects. 
9.         Keeping in view the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm opinion that it is not a case of any deficiency in service or say unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Rather the alleged injury is emotional and not actual one. Resultantly, the consumer complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
30/04/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President