Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/141/2023

Vipin sheoran - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.      

C. C. No.               141 of 2023

                                                                   Date of Institution: 09.10.2023

                                                                   Date of order:          23.10.2024        

 

Vipin Sheoran son of Shri Balwan Singh Sheoran, resident of ward No. 1, M. C. Colony, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri

…..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Automotive Sector, Mahindra Towers 3^rd Floor, Akurli Road, Kandivali, (E) Mumbai-400101 through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., 473, 474, Auto Market, Hisar through its Manager/Authorized Signatory-125001.
3. Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Loharu Road, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani-127021

                                                                                       …..Opposite parties. 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Before-        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri B. S. Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Deepanshu tuteja, Advocate for OP No. 1.

Shri Pardeep Parmar, Advocate for OPs No. 2 & 3.

ORDER

          The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased one XUV300 (W8) Car, bearing registration No. HR-19Q-6378 from OP no.2 in the month of January, 2021 and at the time of delivery, the OP No.2 assured the complainant for complete warranty of the car upto 3 years from the date of delivery without any kilometer restriction and the OP No. 2 had issued a warranty certificate.  It is averred that on 5.9.2023, a issue arises in the left side ORVM (outside rear view mirror), which was automatically adjustable and retractable and also in the side door beadings of front two doors.  It is further averred that the complainant call the OP No. 2 telephonically, who guided to approach the OP No. 3 at Bhiwani being nearest one.  It is further averred that the complainant visited the OP No. 3 on 9.9.2023, who checked the problem in the vehicle and opened Job Card No. RO 24C004404 dated 9.9.2023 and demanded cash against the replacement of above parts of the vehicle.  It is further averred that the complainant had refused to pay the amount to OP No. 3 by saying that the vehicle was within warranty, but the OP No. 3 intentionally refused about warranty of the Car and closed the Job Card.  It is further averred that the complainant had requested several times to the OPs No. 2 & 3 for replacement of above defective parts of the Car free of costs within warranty period, but to no effect.  It is further averred that the complainant had also served a legal notice to the OPs on 20.9.2023, but the OPs did not replace the above said parts of the vehicle in question, which amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the answering OP is a reputed automotive manufacturer in the country and appointed the authorized dealers on a ‘principal-to-principal’ basis for sale of its vehicles and not that of a ‘principal and an agent’ basis.  It is averred that the answering OP is ably supported by excellent dealerships/ authorized service centers, like OP No. 2, having excellent workshop setup for after sales servicing of the vehicles, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel.  It is further averred that at the time of purchase of vehicle, the owner’s manual was handed over to the complainant and the vehicle owners are bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty policy.  It is further averred that there is no privity of contract between complainant and the answering OP.  It is further averred that the authorized dealers of the answering OP purchase the vehicles from them on payment of full price and thereafter, the vehicles are sold by the dealers to its end customers, alongwith the documents and all the issues are independently handled by dealers.  It is further averred that answering OP cannot be held liable for any acts/omissions committed by the authorized dealers i.e. OP No. 2 and placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors, 2021 SCC.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant had made a false story to extort the money.  It is averred that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No. 2 in the month of January, 2021.  It is further averred that the issue of the complainant was solved without any cost and complainant also made subject satisfaction note.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence, their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 

5.                 We have heard the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the considered view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.  During the course of arguments ld. counsel for the complainant has stated that the dealers/agents of OP No. 1 are not guiding their customers properly, not providing adequate after sale service, comfortable & hygienic waiting rooms, wash rooms and clean drinking water etc.

6.                After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint in hand deserves acceptance only against OP No.2 & 3.  The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 (manufacturer) and thus OP No. 1 cannot held liable for the deficiency in service by dealer and authorized centre in rendering after sale service and assistance for repairs of vehicle, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors, 2021 SCC.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Car from the OP No. 2 in the month of January, 2021.  It is also admitted that the vehicle in question has three years warranty and it is also proved on record from copy of warranty certificate Ex. C2.  The only question in this case is whether OPs No. 2 & 3 were justified in not removing the defects of the vehicle in question during the warranty period, free of costs.  However, during the pendency of the present complaint, the OPs No. 2 & 3 have repaired the vehicle in question free of costs and this fact has been confirmed by them in their written statement in Para No. 2 of reply on merits and they also placed on record copy of Job Sheet dated 9.11.2023 Ex. R2 and copy of feedback Ex. R3.  So, it is proved on record that during the pendency of present complaint, the vehicle in question was repaired by OPs No. 2 & 3 on 9.11.2023 free of costs.  Now, the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from the OPs No. 2 & 3 for the harassment, hardship and mental agony suffered by him due to act and conduct of the OPs No. 2 & 3.  The sought answer is Yes.  The OPs No. 2 & 3 have failed providing quality and hassle free service to their consumer.  It is pertinent to mention here that it is the obligation of the authorized service center and dealers to provide proper and satisfactory service, guide their customers properly, to give full assistance, to take care of clean drinking water and to provide comfortable & hygienic waiting rooms and washrooms etc.  It is the duty of the OPs No.2 & 3 to remove the defects in the Car in question free of costs during the warranty period, but they have failed in doing so.  As the contract amongst OP No. 1 and OPs No. 2 & 3 is on ‘principal to principal basis’, so the OPs No. 2 & 3 only are responsible for deficiency in service after sale of the vehicles and in this case they are held liable for deficiency in service.

7.                In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances, we partly allow the present complaint against OP No. 2 and 3 and they are directed: -

i)        To pay Rs. 5500/- (Five thousand five hundred only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice.

ii)       To pay Rs.5500/- (Five thousand five hundred only) as litigation charges.

iii)      To provide neat & clean drinking water, comfortable & hygienic waiting rooms, washrooms, proper guidance and full assistance to the customers.

8.       The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order, failing which the amount will attract interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 9.10.2023 till actual realization.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The Order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.