Punjab

Sangrur

CC/841/2015

Gurjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Autos - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  841

                                                Instituted on:    18.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       01.06.2016

 

Gurjinder Singh son of Santokh Singh, resident of VPO Gharachon Kothe, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     MAX Autos (Authorised Dealer for Maruti Udyog Limited Gurgaon), Dhuri Road, Sangrur, through its Authorised signatory.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No.1.            :       Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurjinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased four alloy wheels of 15 inch having serial number C192 for Rs.23,990/- from OP number 1 on 25.05.2015 vide bill number 550 for his swift VDI car bearing number PB-13-AP-6670, which was having two years warranty period.  Further case of the complainant is that on 10.7.2015, three alloy wheels of the vehicle got damaged due to manufacturing defects i.e. scratches and high bending of alloys and due to that alloy wheels became unbalanced and it became very difficult to drive the car properly.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 1 on 11.7.2015 and on checking the alloy wheels, the OP number 1 assured its replacement with a new one within seven days, but nothing happened despite visiting the complainant to OP number 1 so many times and lastly on 14.8.2015, the OP number 1 refused to replace it or to refund the amount. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective alloy wheels with a new one or to refund the purchase price of the alloys wheels i.e. Rs.23,990/- and further to pay compensation for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased four alloy wheels from the OP number 1 on 25.5.2015 for Maruti Swift VDI car, however it has been denied that the same were having a warranty of two years. Further it has been denied that on 10.7.2015, three alloy wheels of the car in question got damaged due to manufacturing defect as alleged and further denied that due to scratches and high bending of alloys and due to that alloy wheels became unbalanced.  It has been further denied that the complainant approached OP number 1 on 11.7.2015 and the OP checked the alloy wheels as alleged.  It has been further stated that  when on 11.7.2015, the complainant only got his vehicle washed and cleaned and reported some noise from steering and did not at all reported regarding any damage in the alloys as alleged  rather the complainant for the first time got his alloys checked on 14.7.2015 and on 14.7.2015, the same were checked and it was specifically brought to the notice of the complainant that there are scratches on alloy wheels and these are not due to manufacturing defect and it became only due to some external hit. However, any manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels has been denied at all.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, that the dealer sells the alloy wheels to their customers under their own invoice and as per the terms and conditions between the dealer and individual customer. The relationship between OP number 2 and its dealers including OP number 1 is governed by the provisions of the dealership agreement, that the present complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the alleged alloy wheels from OP number 1 under a contract for sale of goods.  It is stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP number 2, as the alloy wheels have been purchased by the complainant from OP number 1. It is stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels, rather there are scratches only due to external use and the local garage mechanic misguided the complainant.  It has been further stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the defect in the alloy wheels is due to internal hit.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of the OP number 1 and 2, whereby denied the allegations levelled in the reply and further reiterated the averments of the complaint.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of report, Ex.C-5 copy of invoice dated 25.5.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of specification feature, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-15 copies of job cards, Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 copy of maintenance report, Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-20 photographs, Ex.C-21 copy of email print out and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP1/3 affidavits, Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/8 photographs, Ex.OP1/9 copy of vehicle history, Ex.OP1/10 to Ex.OP1/20 copies of job cards and job slips and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file, written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant approached the OP number 1 and purchased four alloy wheels of 15 inch having serial number C192 for Rs.23,990/- vide bill number 550 dated 25.5.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5 with two years warranty.  But, the complainant has not produced on record any such document showing that the alloy wheels were having two years warranty.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that three alloy wheels of the car in question suffered scratches on various portions, as they were made of inferior quality material and further the alloys had got bends due to that reason.  But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the alloy wheels are working perfectly and there are only scratches on the same which are due to external use or hit and there is no manufacturing defect in the same. 

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended vehemently that the complainant has suffered a lot of inconvenience due to supply of defective alloy wheels, which are having manufacturing defect and to support such a contention, he has relied upon the report, Ex.C-4 submitted by one Lakhpat Rai Proprietor of Hind Motors, Mehlan Road, Sangrur.  We have very carefully perused the report  Ex.C-4 of Shri Lakhpat Rai and found that he is only a shopkeeper, who is doing the business of motor vehicle spare parts and accessories, but it is not a technical expert of alloy wheels nor he is any degree holder in this field, as such, we are unable to accept his report. We have further perused the copy of job card Ex.C-7 dated 12.7.2015, which shows that first free service of the car in question was conducted on 12.7.2015 and there is not even a single word about the defect in the alloy wheels in question. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced on record the affidavit of Sukhchain Singh, Service Advisor, who has clearly mentioned in affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 that the alloy wheels were checked on 14.7.2015 and it was specifically brought to the notice of the complainant that there are scratches on alloy wheels and these are not due to manufacturing defect rather the same are some external hit. Further in para number 5 of the affidavit it has been stated that even after 14.7.2015 the complainant brought his car for service and repairs on 18.7.2015, 25.7.2015 and 14.8.2015, but on all these times, the complainant never reported about any damage or problem in the alloy wheels.  In the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that there are only scratches on the alloy wheels, which might be due to external hit and not due to the manufacturing defect, more so when the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 1, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                           (Sarita Garg)

                                                               Member