Haryana

Panchkula

cc/251/2014

SATISH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA INDIA& OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP LATHER

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	251 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	01.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	08.04.2015

                                                                                          

Satish Kumar S/o Late Sh.Chatter Singh, R/o village Dhundwa, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal, now R/o House No.181 GF, Basanti Bagh Sai Road, Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Mahindra India & World Headquarters, Mahindra Towers, G.M.Bhosale Marg, Mumbai-400018 through authorized signatory, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Opposite Gate No.4, Swaraj Plant, Phase IV, Industrial Area, Mohali, District Mohali (Pb).
2. The Manager, Laxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase I, Panchkula, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana.
3. Snow View Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Government Printing Press National Highway No.22, Ghara Chowki, Distt. Simla HP-171005.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                    

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Sandeep Lather, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Adv., for the Op No.1.

                             Mr.Amardeep Sharma, Adv., for the Ops No.2 and 3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Satish Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that on 23.01.2013, he purchased a Mahindra Bolero SLX2WD 7 Seater AC N PS BS3 bearing registration No.HR 70-U-0038 for personal use from the Op No.2 who is authorized dealer of OP No.1 and sales certificate dated 23.01.2013 was also issued to the complainant by OP No.2. Thereafter, Tax invoice dated 23.01.2013 for Rs.7,01,982/- also issued to the complainant alongwith warranty certificate for a period of one year. The complainant has noticed that various parts of the vehicle started rusting within 4 months after the purchase. On 15.04.2013, at the time of first service, the complainant disclosed the problem to the OP No.2 thereafter, 14.09.2013, at the time of second service, the complainant again disclosed the same problem but the Op No.2 declined the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Op No.3 i.e. authorized dealer of Op No.1 for sales, spares and service of the vehicles and explained the problem on 04.12.2013. The executive of OP No.3 painted the four doors, R.H.S front facia paint rusting, paint rusting from COWL panel and paint rusting from tail gate of the abovesaid vehicle and delivered the vehicle on 05.12.2013 in okay condition but the same rusting problem resurfaced. The vehicle given by the Ops was of poor quality, old and substandard. The complainant sent a letter dated 22.01.2014 to the Ops to replace the vehicle with an identical vehicle or to refund the amount of Rs.7,01,982/- but to no avail.
2. In reply, the Op No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is manufacturer of vehicles and sold the vehicles to its authorized dealers in bulk quantities and in turn resold them to their own customers. It is submitted that all the transactions with dealers are on Principal to Principal Basis and not on principal to agent basis. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers and there is no privity of contract between the OP No.1. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commissions of any act by its dealers, as dealers are separate principals and not agents of manufacturer. It is submitted that the liability of the manufacturer is limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty booklet. It is submitted that no cause of action arose against the OP No.1. It is submitted that the vehicle was sold to the complainant was defective as alleged by him, however, the complainant has not approached the dealership once in December with the defect of rust, then affected portion has been repainted and moreover, as per warranty policy, rust was not a manufacturing defect, therefore, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is submitted that there was no expert opinion in order to substantiate the allegations leveled in the complaint. It is submitted that the sale of the vehicle is entirely a prerogative of the dealership and not of the manufacturer. It is submitted that the customers who purchased the vehicle paid the amount to the dealer and in return dealer issued a receipt against the amount received on his bill book and not on the bill book of the company. It is denied that the complainant has noticed that various parts of the vehicle’s body have started rusting within 4 months. It is submitted that the vehicle has been purchased in January, 2013 and the problem has been reported in December, 2013 i.e. almost after one year. It is submitted that the defective portion has been repainted with the consent of the complainant and thereafter, the complainant has not again reported for rusting complaint. It is submitted that rusting could happen due to external factors, for instance, depended upon use of vehicle like, use for rally purpose, use of vehicle on dusty, bad road condition where small pit wholes form on the painted surface due to stone hits, quality of water used for washing. It is submitted that the vehicle sold to the complainant was brand new vehicle and it was manufactured in plant. It is submitted that the year of manufacturing could be ascertained from registration authority as they did notice the chassis number & engine number which reflected the year of manufacturing. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In reply, the Op No.2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant visited the workshop of OP No.2 for service of his vehicle but he never complained the officials of OP No.2 about problem of rusting in his Bolero, therefore, there was no problem in the vehicle of the complainant. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is manufacturer of automobiles and the Op No.2 is dealer of Op No.1. It is submitted that the vehicle supplied to the complainant was of the best quality. It is denied that the supplied vehicle was of sub-standard. It is denied that lackadaisical approach and irresponsive conduct of the Ops has left the complainant with a bitter taste of the whole experience. It is submitted that letter dated 22.01.2014 has no authenticity. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In reply, the Op No.3 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant purchased Mahindra Bolero SLX 2 for commercial purpose from OP No.2. It is submitted that OP No.1 being a manufacturer of Mahindra makes of vehicle and OP No.2 being a dealer sold the vehicle of Mahindra make. It is submitted that the Op No.3 is not a branch office of Op No.1. It is submitted that the OP No.3 is a authorized dealer of OP No.1 in State of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, Solan and Nalagarh. It is submitted that the complainant approached the Op No.3 regarding various parts of Mahindra Bolero having started rusting and Op No.3 carried out necessary painting job on the rusted parts. It is submitted that the op No.2 is authorized dealer of Mahindra make of vehicles, the Op No.3 is under contractual and legal obligations in terms of dealership agreement to carry out the necessary repairs & other works and also when the vehicle is not in warranty by charging. It is submitted that painting work of rusting parts was carried out as asked to do so by the Ops No.1 & 2 and also in term of the agreement under the dealership agreement. It is submitted that the Op No.3 has not received any letter dated 22.01.2014. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 has made a separate statement in which he stated that his written statement might be read as his evidence and closed the evidence. The Op No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Anneuxre R2/1 to R2/4 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Op No.3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R3/A alongwith documents Annexure R3/1 & R3/2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have perused the pleadings made by the parties as also the documentation filed by them in support of their respective pleas and considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Op No.1.
7. The fact that the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Bolero SLX2WD 7 Seater AC N PS BS3 on 23.01.2013 from Op No.2-authoirsed dealer of Op No.1. The sale certificate was also issued on 23.01.2013 (Annexure C-5 & C-6).
8. The complainant has alleged that after 4 months of the purchase of vehicle, he noticed that various parts of the vehicle started rusting. He further alleged that on 15.04.2013 at the time of 1^st service, the complainant disclosed the problem to Op No.2. At the time of 2^nd service, the complainant again disclosed the same problem. The job card dated 14.09.2013 (Annexure C-8) was placed on file by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the rusting problem surface again and he has placed on file the photographs of the vehicle (Annexure C-12 – C-17).
9. The complainant has not produced any document/job card dated 15.04.2013 of the first service. The job card dated 14.09.2013 (annexure C-8) which was issued at the time of second service, reveals that the complainant has not pointed out any problem of rusting of various part of the vehicle. Further the complainant visited the Op No.3-Snow Automobiles on 04.12.2013 and the job card as annexed Annexure C-9 has demanded the following repair:-

“1.    Paint rusting from whole side to be check

2.       All gen & elce check up

3.       Check cluster meter noise

4.       Tyre rotation

5.       Paint rusting from four doors

6.       R.H.S. front facia paint rusting

7.       Paint rusting from cowl panel

8.       Paint rusting from tail gate”

Till then the vehicle of the complainant has covered the mileage of 14771. The required job was carried out and vehicle was delivered on 16.12.2013 (Annexure C-7). The complainant has only issued a notice dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure C-10) to Op No.1 about the problem of rusting but he has not placed any document to prove that he had brought to the notice of Ops No.1 and 2 the rusting problem before 27.01.2014. The photographs submitted by the complainant, are not cleared that the same were taken after the paint of the part of the vehicle. The contention of the complainant is that the rusting problem started within 4 months from the purchase of vehicle but he has only brought the problem after about one year to the notice of Ops. The Op No.1 in their written statement has mentioned that the complainant approached the dealer in December, 2013 with the defect of rusting and then the affected portion has been re-painted and rust was not a manufacturing defect. The complainant has also not placed on record any expert opinion in order to substantiate the allegations leveled by the complainant. After repainting of the defective portion, the complainant has not again reported for rusting complaint to the Ops. In view of the above, no deficiency in service is attributable towards the Ops.

10. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any cogent & positive evidence on the part of the complainant and no negligence on the part of Ops. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

08.04.2015      ANIL SHARMA     ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER             MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.                              

 

                                            

                                                                   DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT