Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/28

Santosh Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  28 of 11.04.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     07.08.2018

 

Santosh Devi, wife of Janak Raj, resident of Village & PO Kotla, Power House, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Mahindra of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. Gateway Building      Apolle Bunder Mumbai-400039

2. Raj Motor Mahindra, Village Choti Gandhon, NH-21, Chandigarh          Road, Ropar, through its Manager 

                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Santosh Devi complainant in person along with her husband Sh. Janak Raj  

Sh. K.S. Longia, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          Sh. Udhey Verma, Adv. counsel for OP No.2 

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the engine cabbine and bonat of the vehicle in question.

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant purchased the vehicle (Maxi Truck) bearing No.PB-12-T-5339, engine No.B85733, Chassie No.B56301, through salesmen's of O.P. No.2 namely Prabhdeep, Dilpreet and Sandeep Kumar for his livelihood. Because I have no source of income. Due to rust problem its window damaged and complainant written a letter dated 21.10.2015 to the O.P. and O.P. changed the window of the vehicle in question. Then cabin of the engine was affected with rust and was having holes. I may be old engine was fitted in the vehicle in question. Complainant purchased the vehicle in question for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- in installments. Sheets of the cabin affected with rust and its conditions deteriorating day by day. In this regard, I wrote a letter dated 21.10.2017 to the Raj Motor Agency, but said agency not filed any reply to the said letter.  They asked telephonically to the complainant and on telephonic message, complainant checked the vehicle in question to the Ropar Agency. Manager Ravinder Bhat clicked the photographs and send to the concerned official. Then second letter dated 27.12.2017 was sent and Ravinder Bhat had called twice to the mobile number of Janak Raj (husband of complainant). He refused to change the cabin and bonat because he spoiled due to chemical. The photographs of the vehicle in question clicked on 5.3.2018 and sent to the Head Office, Mumbai and request letter was also sent.  

  3.  On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the relation between the manufacturer and dealer is on principal to principal basis meaning thereby, dealer is authorized to purchase the vehicle manufactured by the O.P. No.1 in bulk quantities and in turn to resell them to their own customers; that O.P. No.1 is not responsible for any of the act, omission or commission of any act by its dealer. The dealer is a separate principle and not an agent of the manufacturer; that the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred; that the complainant is not a consumer; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is stated that the complainant is not using the vehicle for earning her livelihood by way of self occupation but has employed a driver to run the same. Complainant has nowhere pleaded that she is driving the vehicle by herself but has stated that she has purchased the vehicle for earning livelihood. The problem reported by the complainant was attended promptly and doors had been replaced treating it to be a special case in view of the customer friendly approached i.e. under good will gesture. However, the complaint was reported by the customer in Jan 2016 only and not on 21.10.2015. In the instant case the vehicle has been purchased on 23.2.2014. If any wear and treat problem had arisen almost after two years of the usage, then it cannot be said to be manufacturing defect by any stretch of imagination. The complainant is filing the present complaint after more than four years of the purchase of the vehicle. The complaint has been made after using the vehicle for almost four years i.e. in November 2017. The authorized dealer has offered the resolution by repainting. It is the complainant who has misused her vehicle and handled it negligently therefore, the complainant deserves no relief. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    The O.P. No.2 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and by totally misstating the facts has filed this false and frivolous complaint just to harass the replying OP; that the complainant is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the replying O.P. in this uncalled for litigation just to harass it. On merits, it is stated that the new vehicle in question was sold to the complainant and at the time of sale of the same no part of it was old or damaged one and the same was sold to the complainant to her entire satisfaction. The vehicle in question was warranty period of one year and after warranty period the replying O.P. is not liable to make any replacement of any part of the same. Complainant not made any representation to the replying O.P. The complainant has not got service of the vehicle in question from the answering O.P. as per schedule of maintenance. Further the complainant has used the vehicle in question roughly and transported strong chemicals in the vehicle in question and due to the chemical reaction, the vehicle in question has been damaged. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.   

5.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered affidavit of her husband Ex.C1, and her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C2 along with documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence.  The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Nagraj Bhat, Authorized signatory of Mahindra & Mahindra Ex.OP1/A along with copy of auto sector dealer agreement Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Service Manager of OP2 Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant Santosh Devi and her husband Janak Raj come present who made prayer that vehicle bearing No.PB-12-T-5339 (Maxi Truck) was purchased from the O.Ps. in the year 2014 for livelihood.  Due to rust problem its window were damaged and on approach in the year 2015, the window of the vehicle were changed. Sometime later the body of the truck damaged due to rust and complainant requested the O.Ps. many time  but did not bother. On verification, complainant came to know that O.Ps sold the old truck to the complainant by charging price of the new vehicle. Then the complainant made prayer that non change of the body of the truck as well as the sale of the old truck amounts to deficiency in service. The complaint be allowed and O.Ps. be directed to change the body of the truck.

8.         Sh. K.S. Longia, Advocate, counsel for O.P No.1 argued that complainant has the grievance against OP No.2 not against OP No.1. OP NO.2 is the dealer whereas OP No.1 is manufacturer. Complainant not alleged any manufacturer defect qua the vehicle in question, so no relief can be granted in favour of complainant against OP No.1. The complaint be dismissed.

9.         Sh. Udhey Verma, Advocate, for OP No.2 argued that purchase of the vehicle in question is pertaining to the year 2014 and the warranty period of two years expires in the year 2016. The present complaint has been filed on 11.4.2018. So the complaint is time barred. He further argued that complainant has come present that body of the truck was affected with rust and was having holes in the body. But in evidence complainant not adduced any documentary evidence from which the forum could come to the conclusion that body of the truck or engine parts were damaged due to the rust. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

10.       Complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OPs and OPs admitted the fast of sale purchase. As per the complainant version earlier two windows of the vehicle were changed and secondly the body was damaged. Hence, the present complaint. After going through the documentary evidence and correspondence, the forum has come to the conclusion that it is a consumer dispu8te and complaint is maintainable.

11.  Coming to the main relief as pleaded by Santosh Devi that the vehicle was though purchased in the year 2014 and was purchased for her livelihood by paying 5/5 ½ lacs. To the specific relief which is sought by the complainant from this forum is based upon the body of the truck damaged. In support of this claim complainant herself tendered sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and affidavit of her husband Janak Raj Ex.C2 . In both the documents she has taken the plea as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C3 is the temporary registration of the vehicle.  Ex.C4 is the challan/gate pass dated 19.3.2014.  Then Ex.C5 copy of insurance policy pertaining to the year 2014-15. Ex.C6 again policy for the year 2018-19. Beside this complainant placed on file photocopy of RC, Ex.C7 which speaks the manufacturing date of the truck/vehicle in question March 2014 and the RC No.PB-12-T-5339. Beside this she placed on file one letter addressed to the complainant from the Raj Motor Ex.C8 dated 4.4.2018. Ex.C9 again request on behalf of complainant to the Manager Mahindra and Mahindra company. Beside this complainant placed on file correspondence between her and the O.Ps. Ex.C11 to Ex.C14. During the course of arguments, complainant was asked by this forum qua the manufacturing defect or the damage of the body. She herself admitted that on the file there is no document qua the damage of the body. To rebut the complainant version OP No.1 placed on file Ex.OP1/B i.e. agreement between the manufacturer and the Raj Motor in which the relation is mentioned.

12.  For the grant of relief, the forum is to appreciate the evidence on file adduced by both the parties and the pleadings. No doubt, complainant has taken the specific plea of the damage of body of truck but no expert report/opinion is on the file. While granting relief, forum is to rely upon the expert report. So no evidence qua the status report as on today or at the time of filing of the complaint has brought on the file by the complainant. In this way, the complainant has remains unsuccessful in proving deficiency on the part of O.Ps. So, the complaint is without merit. More so, the purchase of the vehicle pertaining to the year 2014 and warranty period expires in the year 2016. The present complaint filed in April, 2018 and it is also time barred.

13.  In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed. However, under the peculiar circumstances, the parties are ordered to bear their own cost. 

14.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.07.08.2018                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER