Haryana

Ambala

CC/159/2017

Sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Binderjit Singh

10 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Consumer Complaint No	:	159 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	25.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	07.06.2018

Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh.Mehar Singh, R/o Village Banondi, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

.…Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

2.         M/s Tata Motors (manufacturer), 5, Parliament Street, Jeevan Tara Building, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                             …. Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

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

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh.Binderjit Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh.S.R.Bansal, Adv., for the OP No.1.

                        Sh.Prashant Gupta, Adv., for the Op No.2.

 

ORDER

 

                                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car make TATA Model Manza Quadr Aura ABS, Chasis No.MAT 6130319LN01451, Engine No.0045343 of grey Noir colour for an amount of Rs.6,28,951/- under hypothecation from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.PCD/31905 dated 21.11.2009. From the very first day of purchase of car, the car started giving problem of heat. Whenever the complainant approached the OP No.1 for repair of car, the OP No.1 after formal checking/inspection told him that it would be removed automatically with the passage of time but the fault remained same and the complainant did not drive the car for a long distance and had to hire another vehicle. In April, 2011, there was a great manufacturing defect in the said car and the complainant approached the OP NO.1 who advised him to leave his car. After retaining the car for about three months, the OP No.1 handed over the same with assurance that all the defects had been removed and now the car would not give any problem in future but when the complainant had gone for a long run, it stopped on the way due to heavy heat and the car of the complainant is also in the possession of the Op No.1. The complainant is an old age person and due to non-cooperation of Ops, he suffered heart attack and remained hospitalized for sufficient period. The complainant also served legal notice dated 20.08.2011 but all in vain. The act and conduct of OPs not only deficiency in service but also caused mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.

2.                                 The Op No.1 appeared and filed the written statement wherein several preliminary objections such as maintainability, concealment of material facts from this Forum, no documentary proof, time barred etc. The car of the complainant was properly attended as and when it was received for any kind of job. The complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass the OP No.1. The complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer as a necessary party. The complainant handed over the vehicle in the month of January, 2012 and since then the vehicle was lying ready for its delivery but he did not turn up because he has to make the payment total amount of Rs.34,626/- in all and the OPs are ready to deliver the vehicle in question as soon as the payment is made by the complainant. The complainant also liable to pay the parking charges as the vehicle is lying parked with the OP NO.1 since January, 2012. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP No.1 has made a statement that written statement filed by Op NO.1 be read as his evidence.

3.                                 The Op No.2 appeared and filed the written statement wherein preliminary objections such as suppressed material facts, time barred, clean hands etc. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 21.11.2009 and there was no defect in the vehicle. The complainant is failed to disclose that the warranty in respect of vehicle was valid till 23.11.2011 and also the vehicle had met with a major accident in October, 2010, therefore, heavy accidental repair works were carried out. The complainant was irregular & negligent in maintaining & servicing the vehicle in question. The clause No.5 of the terms and conditions of warranty is as under:-

“This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part there of is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure, or by any person other than our authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres in any way so as, in our judgement which shall be final and binding to effect its reliability or shall it apply if in our opinion, which shall be final and binding, the vehicle or the part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and servicing or accident or loading in excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us or the services prescribed in Operator’s Service Book are not carried out at our sales or service establishments, our authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres.”

                        The complainant has not produced any expert opinion to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The relationship exists between the OPs is on principal to principal or principal and agent basis. The complainant had brought the vehicle in question on 04.12.2009 at 1434 kms, on 22.02.2010 at 6141 kms and 19.03.2010 at 11559 kms for availing recommended mandatory services and he did not report any complaint on these occasions. On 05.05.2011, the complainant brought the vehicle in question at 45407 kms for availing schedule service and at that time, the complainant reported the complaint of AC cooling insufficient only. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure RB.

4.                                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                                 Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a car make TATA Model Manza Quadr Aura ABS, Chasis No.MAT 6130319LN01451, Engine No.0045343 of grey Noir colour for an amount of Rs.6,28,951/- under hypothecation from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.PCD/31905 dated 21.11.2009 (Annexure C-1) and the same was got registered from the Registering Authority (Annexure C-2). As per the version of the complainant, the car started giving problem from the very first day of purchase and requested the Op No.1 to repair the same but after every checking/inspection, the Op No.1 stated that it would be removed automatically with the passage of time. In the present case, the Op No.1 has taken the plea that the complainant brought the vehicle in January, 2012 for repair of the vehicle and the OP No.1 has rectified the defect and the vehicle is ready for delivery but the complainant did not turn up to collect the vehicle and to make the billed amount of the parts. The Op No.1 further stated that when the vehicle was brought for repair, the same was out of warranty. At the time of the arguments, the complainant admitted that the vehicle in question is standing in the workshop of Op No.1 and he did not collect the vehicle in question as the vehicle having manufacturing defect. To prove this facts, the complainant has not place on record any mechanical report as vehicle in question having manufacturing defect. We have summoned the previous complaint filed by the complainant titled as Sukhdev Singh vs. Metro Motors from the perusal of the abovesaid file it clear that the Ops have sent the letter dated September, 2011 and informed the complainant that the vehicle is ready after completion of repairs and the complainant was instructed to take the delivery of the vehicle from the workshop of Op No.1 on any working day. But the complainant failed to collect the vehicle in question from Op No.1. On the other hand, the complainant alleged that vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect and he is duty bound to file an application in the Forum under Section 13(i)(c) under Consumer Protection Act to verify the facts whether the car in question is having any manufacturing defect and require any repair work or not, but he did not do so, even then the complainant has also failed to produce the report of any expert regarding manufacturing defect of vehicle in question.

6.                          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant fails to prove his case and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                          A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on:07.06.2018                                                 (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER