Haryana

Ambala

CC/232/2013

ASHWANI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

METRO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

YUDVINDER GUPTA

20 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                    Complaint Case No. : 232 of 2013

        Date of Institution    : 09.09.2013

         Date of Decision      :  20-06-2017

 

Ashwani Gupta son of Sh. Ram Karan Gupta, R/o Village and post office Shahzadpur Tehsil Naraingarh Distt. Ambala.  

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Metro Motors Private Limited, KM 10 G.T. Road, opposite Mohri Railway Station, Post office Mohra, Distt. Ambala through Manager.
2. Tata Motors Ltd. 20^th floor, One India Bulls, Central Tower, 2-A, 841, Senapathi Bapat 2 Marg, Elphinstone road, Mumbai 400013.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Yadvinder Gupta, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a TATA super A.C.E. loading vehicle bearing engine No. 475ID18MXYST2117 and chassis No. MAT 483139CYP34725 on 07-02-2013 from respondent No. 1. The documents of the vehicle at the time of sale were not delivered to the complainant. The OP No. 1 on the request of the complainant delivered the sale letter and other documents, after about 2 weeks. The complainant after the receipt of the documents applied for registration of the vehicle bearing temporary No. HR-99-NW-9405. It is submitted that there was fault in the engine of the vehicle, the complainant approached the Op No. 1 for necessary checking and repairs on 20-03-2013. The complainant even approached the concerned officers of the OP No. 2 and on direction on tole free number, the complainant approached Passco Motors, Dosarka for necessary repairs on 21-03-2013. The vehicle has covered hardly 500 KMs at the relevant time. The attending staff disclosed that it is a general complainant in this model. The vehicle was not proper functioning on the road and in the compelling circumstances, complainant again approached the OP No. 1 for necessary checking and repairs on 12-05-2013. The officials of Surindra Motors Ambala necessary repairs, but informed that there is manufacturing defect in this particular model of the vehicle and they are waiting for the decision by the OP No. 2. The vehicle was not proper functioning, on which the complainant again approached Surindra Motors in the month of June, 2013, the vehicle covered only 6000/6500 KMs at that time. There was regular mechanical problem in Clutch plates. On which the company repaired and changed the clutch plates under warranty on the aforesaid date, but the defect is of permanent nature. But the problem was not rectified properly, the complainant again approached the OP No. 1 on 11-07-2013. The OP No. 1 attended the vehicle under the warranty policy. The complainant after receipt of the Registration Certificate from the Registering authority noticed that the OP No.1 has committed a fraud and has delivered the vehicle of Model 2012, whereas he has purchased his vehicle on 07-02-2013. The complainant served a legal notice dated 28-06-2013 to the OP No. 1.  Hence, the complainant has prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to replace the vehicle by new model vehicle of 2013 and to pay compensation on account of harassment and financial loss to the complainant.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed their written statement raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint, no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on their part. On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of purchase everything was made cleared to the complainant, to which the complainant had agreed to receive the car from the showroom of OP No. 1 and a detailed reply dated 04-07-2013 was also sent to the legal notice dated 28-06-2013 to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant had visited on 28-03-2013 and 20-07-2013 for normal jobs and thereafter took the delivery from the workshop of OP No. 1 and the last job was carried out by M/s Pasco Motors, Dosarka while covering KMs. 17640 for routine job, hence no case is made out. It is further submitted that the requisite documents were delivered to the complainant in his presence after taking test drive, physical inspection, everything was made clear about the mode of 2012 and a sum of Rs. 16,520/- was given as rebate on the price of the vehicle and it reflects that the complainant has been filed just take undue benefit by filing the present complaint.

It is further submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent and expert evidence in order to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As such, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove their version, counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as C1 to C18 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs has tendered affidavit of Kulbhushan and Ashok Arora as Annexure R1 and Annexure R2 along with documents Annexure R3 to Annexure R7 and closed the evidence. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. From the above arguments, the following two moot questions have arisen for consideration before us are:-

a)       Whether the vehicle has been sold to the complainant of model 2012 without his consent by OPs instead of model 2013 or not?

b)      Whether the vehicle was having manufacturing defect just after purchase ?

                        It is averred by the counsel for the complainant that as per annexure C1, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 07-02-2013 and on 21-03-2013, vehicle in question was giving clutch problem, on which the complainant got repaired his vehicle from M/s Pasco Motors under warranty as per annexure C8 and on 05-04-2013, the vehicle in question again got repaired as the same was again giving problem as per annexure C9. As per annexure C10, the complainant got his vehicle again repaired from M/s Pasco Motors and paid Rs. 2,157/-. The counsel for the complainant has further averred that on 11-05-2013, the vehicle was again giving problem regarding clutch etc. and the same was repaired from Surindra Motors and paid Rs. 3,865/- as per annexure C11. It is further averred that on 13-07-2013, the vehicle was again got repaired from Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. as the same was having Clutch problem.

 5.                    To rebut these contentions, counsel for OP has argued that at the time of purchase everything was made cleared to the complainant about the model of the vehicle, to which the complainant had agreed to receive the car from the showroom of OP No. 1 as proved from satisfaction note annexure R7.

                        It is further argued that the complainant had visited on 28-03-2013 and 20-07-2013 for normal jobs and thereafter took the delivery from the workshop of OP No. 1 and the last job was carried out by M/s Pasco Motors, Dosarka while covering KMs. 17640 for routine job, hence no case is made out.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, it is proved on the file that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant was in knowledge about the model of the vehicle. As such there is no question is arisen that the OPs have committed unfair trade practice by selling the old model to the complainant.  Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the case law cited in I (2015) CPJ 253 (NC) titled as Raj Kumar v. Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd. & anr, wherein it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1)(g), 21  (b) – Motor Vehicle – Purchase of car – Allegedly 2009 model handed over instead of 2011 model – replacement sought – alleged deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – complainant did not lodge any protest and accepted the delivery of vehicle along with sale certificate – there was nothing illegal in selling a vehicle manufactured in March 2009 to a customer in June 2011 – Month and year of manufacture of vehicle disclosed at the time of sale – deficiency not proved, which is squarely covering the facts of the present case.

                        Further, at the time of arguments, counsel for the opposite parties has placed the copy of ledger accounts belongs to the complainant, whereby the rebate amount has been given to the complainant.

7.                     Now, we are coming to the point of manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. As per version of the complainant, on 21-03-2013, vehicle in question was started clutch problem, on which the complainant got repaired his vehicle from M/s Pasco Motors under warranty as per annexure C8 and on 05-04-2013, the vehicle in question again got repaired as the same was again giving problem as per annexure C9. As per annexure C10, the complainant got his vehicle again repaired from M/s Pasco Motors and paid Rs. 2,157/-. The counsel for the complainant has further averred that on 11-05-2013, the vehicle was again giving problem regarding clutch etc. and the same was repaired from Surindra Motors and paid Rs. 3,865/- as per annexure C11. It is further averred that on 13-07-2013, the vehicle was again got repaired from Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. as the same was having Clutch problem.

8.                     Counsel for the OPs has placed on record service history of the vehicle annexure R5, vide which shows that the vehicle was become defective on 28-03-2013 but the OPs have repaired the same under the warranty policy. On 07-05-2013, the complainant conduct the first free service of the vehicle and necessary charges of engine fuel etc. were paid as per rules. On 22-05-2013, 03-06-2013 and 24-06-2013 necessary repairs were done as per warranty policy and on 20-07-2013 and 26-08-2013, the complainant reported some problems in the vehicle and OPs rectified the same under the warranty policy and necessary charges were received by the OPs like deputation charges for onsite repair etc.

9.                     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus the complaint of the complainant is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 20.06.2017                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                            MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER