IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                CASE No.  CC/140/2018

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:             Date of Disposal:

   07.09.2018                              17.09.2018                            21.09.2022  

Complainant: Tanushree Ghosh,

                        W/o Ashesh Kumar Ghosh,

                        Of 17, Kishan Ghosh Lane,

                        P.O. & P.S. – Berhampore,

                        Dist- Murshidabad, W.B.

                        Pin-742101

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  1.Manager,

                        S.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd. ,

                        Vill- Bhakuri-II,  

                        N.H.-34, P.O.- Sargachi,

            P.S.- Berhampore,

            Dist- Murshidabad, W.B.

                        Pin-742134

                         2. Manager,

                        Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

                        Automotive Sector,

                        3^rd Floor, Akurli Road,

                        Mumbai-400101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Jaydeep Mishra

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties No. 1         : Debraj  Mukherjee

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties No. 1         : Sarbari Datta & Sandip Kumar       

                                                                                       Ghosh

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.                        

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY,  MEMBER.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Tanushree Ghosh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against  Manager S.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.  (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing no. W.B. 58AF 1818, SCORPIO S4 2.2 which was purchased from S.N. Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 17^th August, 2015 the complainant sent the vehicle at the workshop of the O.P. on 13.07.2018 which was a paid service and the complainant paid an amount of Rs. (5997 + 2390 = 8387 + GST 983.12) but afterthat on 18^th July, 2018 Torsional Vibration Damper was detected in the said vehicle and for repair of the same the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of the O.P. and after putting his signature on satisfaction he took the delivery of the said vehicle. Again on 23.07.2018 with a problem of RR underbody noise while moving and the O.P. estimated the total cost of Rs. 29,000/-. The complainant considered the amount to high and alleging that the O.P. has misbehaved with her. Complainant stated that for this reason she has faced mental pain and agony and for frequent repair of the vehicle expressed improper and deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

  Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before the District Commission for appropriate relief.

Defence Case

 The O.P. after service of the notice appeared before this Commission by filing Written Version. O.P. No. 1 in the W/V stated that all the averments narrated by the petitioner in her plaint are false and fabricated as because on 18.07.2018 when the vehicle was sent at the workshop of the O.P. with the problem of torsion, vibration, damper (TVD) due to accident was duly solved by replacing TVD and on 23.07.2018 the petitioner again sent the said vehicle at the workshop of the O.P. with a problem of RR underbody noise while moving which was caused due to rough driving and to change to the damaged part of the vehicle it was estimated of Rs. 29000/- as repairment cost of the vehicle and fixed 12.08.2018 for delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. But in spite of repeated request the complainant did not take the delivery of the vehicle prior to 19.09.2018. So, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of the O.P. and the case is liable to be dismissed.

O.P. No. 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and no cause of action has been arisen between them. As there is no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle has been detected. So, the case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 2.

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.

Undoubtedly, the complainant is the owner of the vehicle namely SCORPIO S4 2.2 bearing no. W.B. 58AF 1818. After paid serving on 13^th July, 2018 the complaint faced the problem of Torsional Vibration Damper (TVD) on the said vehicle on 18.07.2018. After that on 23^rd July, 2018 the complainant again faced problem on the said vehicle while plying on the road and for this reason the complainant visited the workshop of the O.P. and after checking the problem the O.P. No. 1 estimated Rs. 29,000/-. After repairing the O.P. demanded the said amount to hand over the vehicle.

The O.P. No. 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the relationship between O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 is the dealership agreement and it is on principle to principle basis. The O.P. No. 2 in the W/V stated that its role is limited to the extent of providing warrant benefits to the end customers based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty booklet, which is provided to the end customers at the time of purchase/ delivery of the vehicle. So the O.P. No. 2 is not at all liable for any disputes other than a genuine case of manufacturing defects subject to technical expert’s report and evidence as required by Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case the complaint has not raised any voice regarding the manufacturing defect of the Vehicle namely SCORPIO S4 2.2 bearing no. W.B. 58AF 1818.

O.P. No. 1 in his W/V stated that the complainant visited the workshop of the O.P. No. 1 on 18.07.2018 with a problem of Noise          which was coming from the underbody of the vehicle while it was moving and it was detected and/or found that Torsional Vibration Damper (TVD) of the rear portion of the vehicle was damaged due to accident and the said accidental problem was duly solved by the mechanics of this O.P. by replacing TVD and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant and being satisfied with the job done by this O.P. the complainant put his signature on satisfaction note when she took delivery of the said vehicle. Again on 23.07.2018 the complainant came to the workshop of the O.P. with the problem of RR underbody noise while moving and on checking it was detected that internal parts of differential of the vehicle were damaged and for repair of the same it was caused Rs. 29,000/- and fixed 12.08.2018 for delivery of vehicle to the petitioner after repairment and it was also detected that due to rough driving the internal parts of the said       vehicle were damaged. O.P. No. 1 was also stated that though on 18.07.2018 TVD was replaced but on 23.07.2018 when the vehicle was again sent to the workshop it had already run 307 km and in course of such running and due to rush driving the internal parts of the differential were again damaged in spite of repeated request the petitioner did not care to take delivery of the said vehicle prior to 19.09.2018 though it was ready for delivery on 12.08.2018.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates for both the parties we are of the view that the complaint faced different problems on different times with the said vehicle and each and every time the O.P. No. 1 solved the problem. It is not the fact that every time the complaint is facing the same problem after taking delivery from the said workshop. So, in our opinion there is no negligency or deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No. 1. The O.P. No. 2 is no way connected with the said repairing problem of the vehicle and so question of deficiency of service does not arise regarding O.P. No. 2. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 07.09.2018 and admitted on 17.09.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.

 Fees paid are correct.

 Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/140/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but without any order as to costs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in