Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/912/2019

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Singla & Gaurav Chadda

06 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/912/2019
Date of Institution	:	05/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	06/05/2022

 

Ravinder Singh son of Jeet Singh, resident of House No.5011, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited through its authorized representative/Head, Plant Quality having its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai – 400001.

2^nd Address : 89, MIDC, Satpur, Nashik-422007.

2. Harbir Automobile Pvt. Limited through its Branch Head/Authorised Representative, Plot No.182/84, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Chadda, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh.Devansh Khanna, Vice Counsel for Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, on 30.1.2019, the complainant booked a vehicle namely Mahindra XUV 300 W6 DSL MT WP (diesel model) with OP-2 which was delivered to him on 22.2.2019 on consideration of ₹9,30,000/-. However, since beginning the complainant faced problems viz. car ignition automatically went off while running and rear door of the left side was not properly fitted.  On 29.3.2019, the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2 for first servicing. After service, the complainant was apprised that the problems had been resolved, however, the vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 2.4.2019, 17.4.2019 and 27.4.2019 with the same problems.  In this regard, the complainant also sent an email to the OP. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and averred that the problems mentioned by the complainant with regard to ignition off intermittently and rear door on left side gave problem in opening and closing were minor wear and tear issues which were resolved.  Denied that any problem once solved had reoccurred. Stated, the complainant last visited on 23.8.2019 for second free service and did not report any such problems. Maintained, the complainant miserably failed to prove any defect in the vehicle. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Vide order dated 14.12.2020, OP-2 adopted the written reply of OP-1.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     It is evident from Annexure C-1, copy of invoice dated 22.2.2019 that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question and paid the total sale consideration of ₹9,30,000/-. Annexure C-4 is the invoice dated 29.3.2019 vide which first service was done.  Annexure C-5 (Colly.) are the invoices dated 2.4.2019, 17.4.2019 and 27.4.2019 vide which running repairs were done.  Annexure C-6 is the email dated 7.6.2019 sent by the complainant through which he forwarded complaint to the customer care of the OP. 
7.     Though the complainant in his consumer complaint has alleged that the vehicle in question had to be taken to the service centre of the OPs time and again for the same defect, but, he has failed to adduce the job sheets of the specific dates to prove the same. Even otherwise, to substantiate his allegations of vehicle repeatedly suffering from same defect, the complainant could have obtained some expert opinion, but he failed to do so.  On the other hand, the plea of the OPs is that only minor wear and tear were reported in the vehicle which were rectified and they have vehemently denied that the problem once solved ever reoccurred.
8.     In such circumstances, in order to prove his case that the vehicle did suffer from some inherent defect and justify his prayer for refund of the amount, it was incumbent upon the complainant to have produced some tangible evidence, but, except for his bald and self-serving vague assertions, there is nothing on record to support such a claim. Complainant is master of his own case. If the complainant is alleging something in his consumer complaint against the OPs, onus to prove the same also lies on his shoulders. However, he has miserably failed to discharge the said onus. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete evidence brought on record by the complainant, we cannot hold that there was any defect in the vehicle or the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service or indulged in unfair trade practice.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/05/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member