Haryana

Sonipat

167/2014

BALBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MALWA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH KHATRI

28 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.167 of 2014

                                Instituted on:20.06.2014

                                Date of order:20.11.2015

 

 

Balbir Singh son of Ram Sarup, resident of VPO Mohana, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.                                                

                                                     ...Complainant.

                        Versus

 

M/s Malwa Motors Sales (P) Ltd. Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

 

                                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mukesh Khatri Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Kamal Hooda Adv. For respondent.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

       Complainant has filed the present complaint against

the respondent alleging therein that he has purchased one Spark Cark on 9.5.2011 from the respondent, but the respondent entered the delivery date in the month of 12/2010.   The respondent, however, has given three years warranty i.e. upto 9.5.2014.  After some time, there appears some problem in the car and for the removal of the defective part, the complainant approached the respondent, who refused to change the said part on the ground that the date of delivery in his ledger and computer is mentioned as 12/2010.  The complainant has requested the respondent to replace the defective part, but of no use.  The complainant served the respondent with legal notice which has also not brought any fruitful result. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has purchased the spark car from the respondent on 9.5.2011.  As per service record in the month of 12/2010, the complainant has plied the car for 5074 Kms.  The complainant did not mention which part of the vehicle needs to be replaced and the respondent refused for the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The respondent got serviced the vehicle on 9.12.2011, 8.5.2012, 25.7.2012, 10.11.2012, 8.6.2013, 7.9.2013, 13.09.2013 and 19.2.2014.  On 13.2.2014 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the respondent with the complaint of head working/throatier body change and on the inspection, it was found that the complainant has already got done the work of engine from outside and that is why the respondent was unable to did the above said work under warranty because the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from some other mechanic.  NO legal notice was ever received by the respondent and no any such notice was ever served by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant has purchased the spark car from the respondent on 9.5.2011.  As per service record in the month of 12/2010, the complainant has plied the car for 5074 Kms.  The complainant did not mention which part of the vehicle needs to be replaced and the respondent refused for the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  The respondent got serviced the vehicle on 9.12.2011, 8.5.2012, 25.7.2012, 10.11.2012, 8.6.2013, 7.9.2013, 13.09.2013 and 19.2.2014.  On 13.2.2014 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the respondent with the complaint of head working/throatier body change and on the inspection, it was found that the complainant has already got done the work of engine from outside and that is why the respondent was unable to did the above said work under warranty because the vehicle was got repaired by the complainant from some other mechanic.  NO legal notice was ever received by the respondent and no any such notice was ever served by the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          The main stand taken by the respondent is that the respondent refused to do the work of the car because the complainant has already got repaired his car under warranty from the outside mechanic.  Further in para no.6, it is submitted that no legal notice was ever received by the respondent and no such notice was ever served by the complainant, hence there is no question arises regarding suffering any harassment and mental agony by the complainant on the part of the respondent.

          On the contrary, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C9 i.e. reply dated 3.3.2014 to the legal notice sent by Shri Kamal Hooda, Adv.  So, the plea of the respondent that no legal notice was ever received by the respondent is not tenable in the eyes of law.  The respondent has tried to mislead the Forum for the reasons best known to him.

          As far as the other objection of the respondent that the complainant got his vehicle repaired from the outside mechanic during the warranty period, is concerned,  there is no evidence in this regard from the side of the respondent.   Except the written statement and affidavit, there is nothing on record from the side of the respondent.

          As per the respondent that the respondent only charged the cost of the spare parts as well as labour charges from the complainant.  In our view, charging of Rs.12082/- from the complainant is wrong and illegal because when at that time, the vehicle of the complainant was within warranty period.  Thus, it is held that the complainant is entitled to get refund his amount of Rs.12082/- from the respondent. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.12082/- (Rs.twelve thousand eighty two only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.  The respondent is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for deficient services, unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:20.11.2015.