Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/598

Nirmal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohindra and Mohindra - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Singh Adv.

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 598 of 29.08.2014

Date of Decision            :   18.08.2015

 

Nirmal Singh aged about 46 years son of Karam Singh resident of village Ward No.2, Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, District Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Mahindra and Mahindra, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 through its Authorized person/Manager.

2.Modern Motors, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its authorized person/The Manager.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.S.P.Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Rajiv Bhatia, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Harjit Singh, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Sh.Nirmal Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that Balkirat Singh, agent of OP2, met him at Khamano for inducing him to purchase Mahindra XUV500 FWD W8-JC SLVR car by assuring that the said car is very cheap and of good quality. Complainant after paying heed to the advice of the said agent, purchased the above said car on 28.03.2013 from OP2 and thereafter, obtained registration No.PB-65-V-0017 of the said car. The said car went out of order in December 2013, due to fault in wiring harness floor. OP2 affixed wiring harness floor by charging Rs.18,233/- from the complainant in illegal manner because the car was under warranty at that time. Affixing of the wiring harness floor alongwith other parts i.e. seats, gear liver etc., was not done properly. Decoration of the car from the inner side totally faded due to negligence of OP2. Centre locking system of the said car even went out of order, due to which, the complainant approached Ops for change of the same, but the Ops paid no heed. A legal notice dated 4.3.2014 was got issued by the complainant from his counsel Sh.Manish Kumar Joshi, Advocate, but a false reply dated 20.03.2014 was sent by the Ops. Despite promise of refunding of amount of Rs.18,233/- and change of all the defective parts of the vehicle, the same has not been kept. Complainant seeks directions against the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.18,233/- and even pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment.  Counsel fee and litigation expenses of Rs.6500/- also sought to be recovered.

2.                In separate written statement filed by OP1, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable because there was no manufacturing defect; there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1; complainant has no cause of action and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. Further, it is claimed that relation between the OP1 and OP2 is that of manufacturer and dealer. All the transactions with the dealers are carried on principal to principal basis. The car in question was out of order due to damage of floor wiring harness because of its being gnawed by rats. Ops cannot be held liable for such damages because those factors are beyond their control. It was the responsibility of the complainant to keep the vehicle away from such rodent infested areas and spaces to prevent such kind of damage to the vehicle. OP1 played no role in the sale of the vehicle to the customer because sale of the vehicle is prerogative of the dealer. Consideration amount of the vehicle was paid to the dealer/OP2 against receipt. OP1 is not aware of the dealings of dealer with their customer because of lack of privity of contract between OP1 and purchaser. Complainant after paying Rs.18,233/- i.e. the repair charges for floor wiring harness, took away the vehicle and thereafter, no complaint was reported qua the vehicle in question lodged by the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied except that of receipt of legal notice dated 4.3.2014 and submission of reply dated 20.3.2014.

3.                OP2 filed separate written reply by claiming interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands; intricate points are involved requiring elaborate evidence due to which the matter needs be determined by Civil Court; OP2 delivered the vehicle   to the complainant after conducting the PDI and finding the vehicle to be perfect in all respect at the time of delivery. It is also claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2. There was cutting of the wires due to rat bites and that defect was shown to the complainant by clearly communicating to him as if the same is not manufacturing defect. Complainant was informed that he will be charged for replacement of the said wiring system. After replacement of the wiring system, no problem arose. Even the problem pointed out by the complainant arose for the first time in December, 2013 i.e. after 9 months of the purchase of the car on 28.3.2013. By that time the car covered mileage of 8719 kilo meters. Had there been any manufacturing defect, then the wiring problem pointed out by the complainant would have surfaced within few kilo meters of travelling. The amount has been charged legally and thereafter, affixing wiring harness, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant as per his satisfaction in the proper manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Counsel for the complainant to prove the case of complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1/A of Sh.Ashok Sood, Partner of OP2 and even tendered documents Ex.RA1/1 to Ex.RA1/3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                 Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/4 on behalf of OP2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

8.                There is no dispute regarding the fact that car in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2. Repair of the said car was got done on 23.12.2013 is also an admitted fact and even born from perusal of the documents Ex.RA1/1 and Ex.C4. That repair was carried out for changing wiring harness floor. Perusal of Vehicle Car Inspection Check Sheet Ex.RA1/1 reveals that floor wiring was cut by mouse and that is why for replacing the same, Rs.18,300/- including cost of floor wiring and labour charges, was got by OP2 from the complainant. This documentary evidence establishes as if damage to the floor wiring harness was caused due to gnawing of wire by rats. So certainly damage to the wiring harness was not on account of manufacturing defect, but it was due to external conditions. It was certainly the responsibility of the complainant to keep the purchased car through Ex.C7 or Ex.C6 at safe place, so that rats may not gnaw the wiring system in any way. That care expected from a man of ordinary prudence for due maintenance of the car was not taken by the complainant and as such negligence was on the part of the complainant and not on the part of the Ops. Despite that OP2 forwarded the request for approval of the borne expenses to OP1 through Ex.RW1/1 on 1.5.2014. Before that similar request for approval of the claim on goodwill basis was forwarded by OP2 to OP1 on 18.04.2014 through Ex.RW1/2. That request was rejected by the service engineer is a fact born from perusal of Ex.RW1/3. That request for not approving payment of charges for replacement of the wiring harness floor was rightly turned down by OP1 because there was no manufacturing defect in the car. As negligence of complainant himself exclusively contributed for damage to the wiring harness floor and as such, Ops cannot be held responsible for that. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Babita)                                  (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                   Member                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:18.08.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.