Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/791/2012

Chirag Singhal S/o.Sunil Kumar Shinghal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Aggarwal

20 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 791 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 26.07.2012 

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 20.07.2017

 

 

Chirag Singhal aged about 28 years, son of Shri Sunil Kumar Shinghal, resident of House No.27, Opposite Confed Gas Godown, Kalindi Colony, Lal Drawa,Yamuna Nagar.

   …Complainant.

 

                                                            Versus

 

1. M/s Metro Motors, Tejli Gate, Near LIC Office, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. M/s Metro Motors, Head office 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. -133001.
3. Tata Motor Limited, Manufacturer of Car make India Vasta (Address to be filled up).

 

                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                      SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                      SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………....MEMBER.

 

Present:          Shri Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant

                      Shri Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 (amended upto date) against the respondents (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant purchased a car “Indica Vista” bearing Chassis No.MAT611456APB18256, Engine No.100A20000065173 from the OP No.1 which was later on allotted Registration No.HR02-W-3977 by the Registering Authority, MV, Jagadhri. It is a matter of great surprise that the said car being purchased by the complainant did not work properly and the said car having a number of problems in it. It has been further mentioned that the complainant from 02.03.2012 to till date had taken the said car with the OP No.1 as many as 12 times having one problem or the other. It is pertinent to mention here that in the 1^st service there was vibration in the car in question and noise at the back of said car, which was got removed by the complainant, then again on next day the complainant had to take the said car with the OP No.1 because the shocker of the car had been misplaced from the Dicky of car. Thereafter, the noise at back of the car did not stop and the complainant had to take it with the OP No.1, more than 2-3 times. On 17.03.2012, the said car was again taken to the OP No.1 and this time, due to the fact that the shocker of the car had been misplaced and the OP No.1 had assured that new shocker would be provided after 15 days.

3.                     On 09.06.2012, the AC cooling Fan of the car in question was jammed and the same was again taken to the OP No.1 and this time the compressor of the AC was changed and on the very next date the AC parts, cleaning of Radiators, AC Gas Filling and switches of windows were done because they all were having problem in it. Again on 12.06.2012, the complainant had to take the car in question with the OP No.1 because the engine of the car in question was giving excessive noise. Thereafter, on 11.07.2012 the said car was again taken by the complainant with the OP because there was vibration in the Dashboard and the car remained for 2-3 days with the OP No.1 for getting removed its problem. On 16.07.2012, the complainant again visited the OP No.1 and requested to change the same with new one as the same is having manufacturing defect in it but the OPs flatly refused to do so and the official of the OP no.1 also mishaved and man handled with the complainant. Hence, this complaint and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to replace the car with new one or in the alternate to remove the defects from the car one time and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

4.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not totally false and frivolous not a consumer dispute, concealment of facts, no deficiency in service  so much so the vehicle was lastly attended on 12.09.2012 while covering KMS.82005 for running repair i.e. after filing of the complaint and thereafter took the delivery being fully satisfied and prior to that the car was properly attended leaving behind no other defect as per complete detail of service history. Complainant stands nowhere, because the vehicle was properly attended as and when it was received for any kind of repair etc. and so much so, the vehicle is out of warranty to the extent that he had taken accidental claim number times which reflects from the vehicle history i.e. on 04.09.2012, 07.04.2011, 27.07.2011, 07.03.2012, 21.07.2012 and lastly on 12.09.2012 while covering KMS 78152 as mentioned at Page No.2 of the vehicle history,  but this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant and as warranty terms, the complainant has no case and warranty comes to an end, hence, the complaint be dismissed with costs, because the complainant should not look after either to the dealer or to the manufacturer being out of warranty and on merit it has been submitted that the warranty stands nullified as per accident had on 21.07.2012. It is wrong to allege that the car is having some problem from the very beginning and if it would have been the position then the car should not have converted run Kms. 82005 as on 12.09.2012. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities and his evidence was closed by Court order vide order dated 18.02.2016. However, at the time of filing of the complaint, complainant has placed on file some documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Bikram Singh, Service Manager as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant  and have gone through the pleadings, documents placed on file.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased a car “Indica Vista” bearing Chassis No.MAT611456APB18256, Engine No.100A20000065173 from the OP No.1 which was later on allotted Registration No.HR02-W-3977 by the Registering Authority, MV, Jagadhri on 30.04.2010, which is duly evident from the photocopy of delivery challan (Annexure C-1) and temporary registration Certificate (Annexure C-2). It is also not disputed that car in question was under warranty for 24 months from the date of sale of car or 75000 KM which was occur earlier which is duly evident from the service book/warranty terms and conditions (Annexure C-9). It is the grievance of the complainant that from the 2^nd March, 2012 to till date i.e. 26.07.2012 (date of filing of the complaint), he had taken the said car with the OP No.1 as dealer of OP No.3 manufacturer as the car was having one problem or the other i.e. vibration in the car in question and noise at the back of said car, shocker of the car had been misplaced from the Dicky of car, there was problem of cooling from the AC etc. due to which complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss and its happened due to the fact that the car in question was having manufacturing defect and prayed for replacement of car with new one or in alternate OPs be directed to remove the defect in car in question. But this plea of the complainant is not tenable as firstly from the perusal of warranty terms and conditions (Annexure C-9), it is duly evident that car in question was having warranty for 24 months from the date of sale of the car or 75000 KMS whichever occurred earlier i.e. the car in question was having warranty dated 29.04.2012 as the date of purchase is 30.04.2010. We have perused entire contents of the complaint but not a single iota of word has been disclosed in the complaint by the complainant that car in question become defective in the year 2010 or 2011 as neither any job-card/job-sheet of the year 2010/2011 has been placed on file by the complainant. The complainant has placed on file only job-sheets dated 10.06.2012 and 11.07.2012 (Annexure C-4 and C-5). In support of his case these invoices/job sheets are beyond the warranty period, furthermore from the perusal of these job sheets it reveals that the routine services have been carried out by the OP No.1 and 2 in regard to the car in question. Further the version of the OPs that complainant had taken accident claims numbers of time which reflects from the vehicle history i.e. on 07.04.2011, 27.07.2011, 07.03.2012, 21.07.2012, 04.09.2012 and lastly on 12.09.2012 while covering 78152 KMS as mentioned at page No.2 of the vehicle history has not been rebutted by the complainant by filing any cogent evidence. Even, on the other angle also, the complainant has not placed on file any expert report or mechanic report to prove that the car in question was having any manufacturing defect. It is worth mentioning to point out that at the very outset that complainant did not get checked the car from expert mechanical Engineer to establish that there was any manufacturing defect in any part of the car. The car was used upto 77628 Kms till 11.07.2012 just after use of 02 years and 03 months. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the car, the same could not be used for covering such long distance. If the defects were not removed from time to time by the OP No.2 then other problem could also occur in the car such as damage to the tyres and other parts but neither it is allegation of the complainant nor there is any such evidence as complaint of the complainant was always attended by the OP No.1 and necessary repairs were carried out. There is no allegation of the complainant that OP No.1 had refused to repair the car or replace any part covered under the warranty. Mere allegations that some problem occurred while driving the car does not lead to conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in any part of the car.

9.                     Resultantly, under such circumstances, we have no hesitation to conclude that complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in some parts of the car. So, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:

Dated: 20.07.2017.

 

		(ASHOK KUMAR GARG) PRESIDENT,DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.
(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND) MEMBER	(S.C.SHARMA) MEMBER