Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/127

MAJOR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

MS. GAHUNIA

04 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  127 of 11.12.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    04.03.2020

 

Major Singh, son of Tela Singh, resident of Village Kalaran, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Managing Director of Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturer Limited, Plot No.A-1, MIDC, Phase IV Chakan Industrial Area Village Nighoje Taluka Khed, Pune 41050'

2. Service Manager Raj Motors Authorized Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Limited NH21 Chotti Gandhon, Chandigarh Road, Ropar, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3. Branch Manager Raj Motors Authorized Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, NH21, Chotti Gandhon, Chandigarh Road, Ropar                                                                                                                                                          ....Opposite Parties  

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. M.S.Gahunia, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.Ps. exparte 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.   Major Singh, son of Tela Singh, resident of Village Kalaran, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to change the vehicle with the new one; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay the litigation expenses, which this Hon'ble Forum deemS just and proper, for the filing and perusing the present complaint against the O.Ps; any other relief, which this Hon'ble Forum deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the complainant.     

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 09.10.2017, the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeeto Minivan LXD D+4 from O.P. No.3.  The vehicle of the complainant started giving trouble with the odometer as the same was running fast than normal speed. When the complainant reached service centre on dated 01.11.2017, he made a complaint to the Service Manager/OP No.2 at the service station of Mahindra Raj Motor, Rupnagar and their mechanic to inspect his vehicle and he agreed to fix the problem under warranty, however, after the service of the vehicle when the complainant started using the vehicle, the problem of odometer running fast was still there. He had again reached OP No.2 Rupnagar service station on 1.1.2018 and made the same complaint to them regarding odometer. He told OP No.2 that his daily usage of the vehicle is near about 90 KM per day from Mohali to Morinda updown and the complainant has not been using the vehicle Saturday and Sunday due to holiday in the institute where his vehicle was working. Till today, the odometer of the vehicle in question is not functioning properly and O.Ps. have refused to repair/change the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.    On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2020. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence.

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

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. M.S. Gahunia argued on 09.10.2017, the complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.3 and since the date of purchase the vehicle started giving problem. He visited the O.Ps. various times as mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant made prayer that appreciating the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A and other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18, it is apparent that vehicle is not functioning properly and O.Ps. is unsuccessful in removing the defect. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Before filing the complaint, complainant sent a legal notice but without any reply. Now the Hon'ble Forum has issued the notice and O.Ps. despite receipt of the notice did not appear. So the evidence is unrebutted and complaint be allowed as per the prayer in the relief clause.

7.    Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar and OP NO.3 from whom he purchased is having office/showroom Chandigarh Road, Ropar. Though, the purchase is dated 9.10.2017 but considering the warranty period, the complaint is within limitation and this forum has the jurisdiction to decide the complaint.

8.    No doubt, the O.Ps. did not appear despite the issue of the notice, and are proceeded against exparte. Especially, the acknowledgment Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 proves due service. The purchase of the sale is admitted as well as duly proved. Complainant placed on file photocopy of the RC Ex.C4 which speaks Registration No.PB65-AN-6734  then he has produced on file his own Driving License. Then the sale/purchase document and the insurance is Ex.C6 to Ex.C12 .

9.    Ex.C13 is the invoice of service dated 1.11.2017 which proves the mileage run by the vehicle is 5232 KMs. Ex.C14 proves mileage dated 01.03.2018 is 12,501 KM. Ex.C15 proves mileage covered is 16352 KMs. Ex.C16 dated 20.10.2018 and the mileage covered is 45125 KMs. Ex.C17 dated 20.10.2018 and the mileage covered is 46126 KMs. Ex.C18 dated 27.11.2018 and the mileage covered is 84841 KMs. The difference between 20.10.2018 to 27.11.2018 of 37 days and mileage covered 39716 Kms, which can not be digested. How a the small vehicle can covered in 37 days the mileage of 40,000/- Kms. To rebut these evidences, O.Ps. did not appear. It proves complainant has been able to prove the improper functioning of the vehicle and entitled to the relief as claimed.

10.  In the light of discussions made above, so far the relief of exchange of vehicle is declined but is allowed to the extent that complainant will deliver the possession of the vehicle to the O.Ps. i.e. Service Centre and O.P. No.3 will be duty bound to get the vehicle duly checked/repaired and tolerate the expenses upto Rs.20,000/- if expenses are beyond this limit, then the over and above expenses would be borne by the complainant and O.P. would return the vehicle within five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in case  the O.Ps fails to return the vehicle to the complainant within this period, then the O.Ps. is directed to pay Rs.5000/- per day till the delivery of the vehicle in question to the complainant as this being his livelihood. Beside this, the O.Ps. is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant.  The above said order is for compliance by the O.Ps. jointly and severally.  

11. 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.04.03.2020                            PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                          (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                    MEMBER