BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 64 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 25.2.2016.
Date of Decision : 15.02.2017.
Narinder Narang, aged 58 years son of Shri Bhagwan Dass, resident of House No. 934, Sector 19, HUDA, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Motor Plus, Opp. Maruti Agency, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its proprietor.
- MGT International, 48/25/1, Hastsal Industrial Area, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi- 110 059, through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. J.B.L. Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajinder Bajaj, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 25.2.2013, he purchased a car alarm from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- for his car bearing No. HR-24R/4925 after assurance of its good quality by op no.1 and at that time op no.1 gave 1/3 years guarantee of the product. The complainant got installed the same in his car. Now three months ago, the car alarm developed defect and stopped working. He reported the defect to op no.1 and requested to replace the same but op no.1 has refused to do so. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and replied that complainant has wrongly stated about the price of car alarm as Rs.4500/- while the original value is Rs.2500/-. The warranty period of the said car alarm is of one year and not three years. It is denied that there has been any manufacturing defect in the said alarm. The alarm was well in the working condition at the time of purchase. The complainant has filed this false complaint because first of all the warrantee/ guarantee period had already been expired as it was only for one year and secondly the fact remains that the car of complainant suffered heavy accidental damages i.e. after the installation of car alarm and complainant had already got repaired the car from the authorized agency namely Shakti Motors, Sirsa. The answering ops are not liable for the alleged damages to the said alarm in question. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, customer copy of warranty Ex.C2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C3, copy of driving licence Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of cash memo/ bill No.332 dated 25.2.2013 Ex.R1, vehicle history Ex.R2, copy of terms and conditions of warranty Ex.R3, affidavit Ex.RW2/A.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. The complainant purchased the central locking system from the opposite party no.1 on 25.2.2013 as admitted by op no.1 and got installed in his above said car. According to the complainant he purchased the said system from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.4500/- whereas ops denied the said fact and pleaded that actual price of system is Rs.2500/- and have placed on file copy of cash memo/ bill dated 25.2.2013 in this regard showing that central locking system was sold to complainant for a sum of Rs.2500/- and on this very document it is mentioned that warranty is valid for one year. The complainant has not produced any bill on file to show that said document is not related to him and system was sold to him for Rs.4500/- by op no.1. Although it is the case of the ops that there is warranty of system for one year but even if it is presumed that complainant was given warranty for more than one year, then also the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the system. Whereas the ops have proved through vehicle history Ex.R2 that car suffered accidental damages in the month of March, 2015 and body repair was done and extensive repairs was done at the vehicle. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 25.2.2016 i.e. after three years of purchase of above said system with the allegations that three months ago the car alarm developed defect and stopped working which cannot be believed at all as car has met with an accident in year 2015 and as per terms and conditions of warranty of system, the warranty shall not apply in case of accident caused to the vehicle. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the system, it would not have worked for such a long time of two years and nine months. In these circumstances, complainant has failed to prove his case.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:15.02.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa
