DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No. 422

 Instituted on:   04.10.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     01.03.2021

Gora Lal son of Ghansham Dass, resident of H.No.91, Mohalla Pathkhanwala, Ward No.13, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai through Managing Director.

2.             Raj Vehicles Private Limited, Branch Office: Near Indian Oil Depot, Patran Road, Sangrur through Managing Director.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:                   :Shri  P.K.Goyal,Adv.              

For the OP NO.1                 :Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For the OP No.2                          :Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                FACTS

1.             Shri Gora Lal,  complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant purchased one Balero Camper Gold VX 2WD BS IV  vehicle for Rs.7,26,858/- from OP number 2 vide invoice dated 30.11.2017 and the same was got financed from Op number 1.  Further case of the complainant is that after some days, the complainant got examined the whole body of the vehicle from Kala Motor Garage and Denting Painting, Sangrur, then the bumpers and both sides of the front windows were  found repainted, which is a manufacturing defect. Thereafter the complainant immediately intimated the OP number 1 and requested the OP number 2 to change the above said defective vehicle with a new one as the same is under guarantee.  The OP number 2 got examined the same from their own experts who also confirmed to the OP that the same is manufacturing defect.  After taking the opinion, the OP number 2 assured the complainant that it will take up the matter with the company and after getting the sanction for change of the vehicle, it will be replaced with a new one in some days. Further case of the complainant is that though he requested the OPs so many times to replace the vehicle in question but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to replace the defective vehicle with a new one or to refund its price along with interest and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that  this Commission has no jurisdiction as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP number 1, that if there is any defect in the paint, then it is not covered under warranty, that the complaint is false and frivolous one, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The warranty specifically excludes the defect alleged by the complainant herein. That the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission.  On merit, it is stated that the sale and service is entirely the prerogative of the dealer and the manufacturer plays no part in it. That a new vehicle has been delivered to the complainant and M/s. Kala Motor Garage is not  authorized by OP to inspect its vehicle. That the complainant had purchased the vehicle with its complete satisfaction and after duly inspecting the same before taking the vehicle. Vehicle is at par with the other new vehicle.   It is further stated that any slight discrepancy in the paint, chrome and trim is corrected during the PDI. Deterioration of appearance items and trim, due to normal exposure or use is not covered under the terms of warranty.  Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and has been filed with ulterior motive only to harass, humiliate and lower down the reputation of the OP and also to extract illegal money from the OP, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, sale and purchase of the vehicle on 30.11.2017 is admitted. But it is denied that after some days when the complainant got examined the whole body of the vehicle from Kala Motor Garage Sangrur and found that the bumper and both sides of the front window were repainted as alleged.  It is stated further that the complainant had purchased the vehicle after his complete satisfaction and taking test drive of the vehicle. It is stated that at the time of its purchase, there was no defect in the vehicle.  Now, the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint which should be dismissed.

FACTS AND FINDINGS

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased one Balero Camper vehicle from the OPs on 30.11.2017. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that after some days when the complainant got examined the whole body of the vehicle from Kala Motor Garage and Denting Painting, Sangrur then the bumpers and both sides of the front windows found repainted, which is a manufacturing defect.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that thereafter the complainant immediately informed the same to the OP number 1 and requested to replace the above said vehicle with a new one.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the Ops assured that the vehicle will be replaced  but the same was not replaced despite his best efforts and as such has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op number 1 has argued that the OP is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question and the OP number 2 is the authorized dealer of OP number 1.  The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has further argued that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as consideration amount was paid only to the OP number 2.  The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.             Further the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has argued that the OP number 2 is the dealer of OP number 1.  The learned counsel has further argued that deterioration of the paint is not covered under the warranty.  The learned counsel for the OP has further argued that the complainant has no case as per the warranty guidelines.  The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has further argued that the delivery of the vehicle was taken by the complainant after taking its test drive and it is further contended that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, there was no defect in the same. The complainant has filed this complaint after one year of its purchase. Lastly the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

8.             To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint.  Ex.C-2 is the bill vide which the vehicle was purchased by the complainant.  Ex.C-3 is the report of Kala motor Garage and Denting Painting, Sangrur and has stated in his report that on examination of the vehicle in question, it was found that bumpers and both sides of the front windows were repainted and the same is manufacturing defect.  ExC-4 is the same document. Ex.C-5 is the insurance policy, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 are the photographs of the vehicle. Ex.C-11 is the receipt, Ex.C-12 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-14 are the postal receipts and Ex.C-15 is the reply of notice.  No expert report has been produced by the OP that the bonnet were not repainted. The complainant has also attached photographs Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10. 

9.             As stated above, there is no evidence on the file to prove that the vehicle was not repainted, so it was the duty of OP number 2 to sell the vehicle in perfect condition, so from the evidence led by the complainant, it is established that the bumpers and both sides of front windows of the vehicle  are repainted.

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Op number 2 to replace the bumpers and both sides of the front windows to the satisfaction of the complainant.    The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        March 1, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President