Haryana

Ambala

CC/205/2021

Raman Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Kanav Motors Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	205 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	12.07.2021
Date of decision	:	02.01.2023

Raman Singh S/O Chhatter Singh, Resident of House No-175/2, Sector-C Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt, Distt-Ambala (Haryana).

…..Complainant

Versus

1. Manager, KANAV MOTORS PVT. LTD., TEPLA, Distt-Ambala State-Haryana (Through its Manager)
2. Ford Corporate Office:- FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., North Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Building 10C, DLF Cyber City DLF Phase II Gurgaon-122002 (Through its M.D).

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                     Shri Abhishek Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                     Shri Sunny Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

                    (a) To refund the amount of Rs.7,512/- i.e costs of rear shockers   alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of service of car    till realization.

(b) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental & physical harassment as well as monetary loss caused to the complainant and of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.                              

                            OR

Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit. 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is second registered owner of Car-Ford bearing Regd No-HR26CH2482, Chassis No MAJA XXMRKAEU-84730, Engine No-EU84730 Model- ECOSPORT DIESEL. Assurances were given by Ford Car India Pvt. Ltd that company will be fully responsible for repair/replacement if any part found faulty. On 09-04-2021 the complainant went to the service centre of OP No.1, for service of his above said car. After service, the service manager checked the abovesaid car and prepared Vehicle Report Card, showing every part of the car as OK except one problem of link rod end, front RHS. During the service, faulty part of the car was replaced. After service the car was again test driven by OP No.1 and thereafter, it was taken for washing and was handed over to the complainant. The complainant had paid Service charges to the tune of Rs.8349/- vide Bill No- RRIAL0005800 dated 09-04-2021. However, thereafter, when the  complainant was on his way, he felt some jerks and jumps issue, as a result it was taken to OP No.1 on 10.04.2021, upon which after checking, it was found that its rear shockers needs replacement, for which it demanded an amount of Rs.7512/-. However, on the other hand, when the vehicle in question had been handed over for service on 09.04.2021, its rear shocker was not found defective. Thus, OP No.1 should have replaced faulty shockers, free of cost, but they charged Rs.7,512/- from the complainant, which was paid by him under compulsion. Since the vehicle in question was taken out from the workshop for washing, the Original Shockers thereof may have been replaced with defective Shockers. Complaint in this regard was also lodged with Ford INDIA but no action was taken against OP No.1. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the vehicle in question was received for normal job on 09.04.2021 at 90427 Kilometers. The vehicle was checked and its rear shocker was found dead, which was replaced on payment basis. The vehicle was delivered to the entire satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant has filed a false claim for the refund of the amount of the rear shocker, which was not allowed. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the relationship between the OPs No.1 and 2 is on 'principal to principal' basis. For the acts of the OP No.1, OP No.2 cannot be held vicariously liable. The complainant had purchased a second hand Ford Ecosport vehicle. As per Warranty terms, the Warranty of the vehicle was valid for 1,00,000 kms or 2 years, whichever is earlier, and the warranty of the vehicle expired on 22.07.2016. The suspension/shockers system's of the vehicle is a wear and tear item and depends on the driving conditions and as such, the replacement of the same does not fall within the purview of warranty. Accordingly the OP No.1 rightly charged an amount of Rs.7,512/- from the complainant towards replacement of the suspension/ shocker's system in the vehicle. The complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.2. The complainant has filed the present complaint on mere presumptions and assumptions. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on his behalf.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Bishan Singh, Service Manager of Kanav Motors, Village Tepla, Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-1/8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Satish Varma Datla, Controller-India MS & S of Ford India Limited, having its office at ^5th Floor, Plot No.142, Chimes 142, Sector 44 Road, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana 122003 as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           The complainant submitted that by charging an amount of Rs.7512/- for replacement of shockers despite the fact that the same were never defective and on the other hand, the original shockers of the vehicle in question might have replaced with a defective shockers by the staff of the OP No.1, when the vehicle in question was taken outside for washing, as such, they are deficient in providing service.
8.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that the complainant has failed to prove his case that the original shockers were replaced by at the workshop of OP No.1 with defective shockers.  It was further submitted that since it was a second hand vehicle and the shockers thereof got damaged with the passage of time, which required replacement and at the same time, since the vehicle in question was out of warranty, as such, OP No.1 rightly charged for replacement of new shockers. 
9.           The question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, the complainant has been able to prove his case to the effect that the original shockers of his vehicle have been replaced by the OPs with a old one, as a result of which, the same were required to be got replaced on the very next date of service (09.04.2021), for which he paid an amount of Rs.7512/- to the OPs, on 10.04.2021.  It may be stated here that not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the OPs replaced the original shockers of the vehicle in question with defective shockers. The mere fact that after service of the vehicle in question on 09.04.2021, vide job card Annexure C-1 and thereafter during test drive on the next day i.e. 10.04.2021, vide job card Annexure C-2 its shockers were found defective, especially, when it is an admitted fact that it was a second hand vehicle of model 2014 i.e. more than 6 years old, cannot be a ground to presume/assume by the complainant that the shockers of the said vehicle cannot go defective or beyond use. The entire case of the complainant is based on assumptions and presumptions, to the effect that the original shockers of the vehicle in question might have replaced with defective shockers during washing of the vehicle; which cannot be considered by this Commission. Thus, in our considered opinion , if OP No.1 has charged an amount of Rs.7512/- for replacement of defective shockers, especially, when the vehicle in question was admittedly out of warranty period, no fault can be attributed either on OP No.1 or OP No.2.
10. In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.                 

Announced:- 02.01.2023

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President