Bharti Kapoor & Anr.               V/s              M/s AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No. 249/2020

04.02.2021

Present:       None

1. This case is at initial stage.
2. It is the case of Complainants that they owned a vehicle ‘Feelander 2.2L Diesel SE' and had not faced any problem for nine years with the vehicle. In May 2020, Complainants started facing couple of issues with the vehicle. They sent the vehicle to M/s AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.1) to resolve the issues in vehicle on 25.05.20.  On 01.06.20 OP No.1 after diagnostic, shared an estimate of Rs.1,45,578/- to resolve the issues in the subject vehicle. However, after negotiations OP No.1 offered to repair the vehicle for Rs.35,164/- and accordingly raised an invoice for Rs.35,164/- towards the aforesaid automobile repairs which was paid by the Complainants. The vehicle was returned to the Complainants on 11.06.20 after repairs. However, it was noticed by the Complainants that the issues with the vehicle were still persisting and they remained unresolved. Complainants sent the vehicle back to OP No.1’s workshop on same day to resolve the issue.
3. It is alleged that OP No.1 has kept the subject vehicle on the pretext of repairs and insisted on the Complainants to accept a ‘courtesy vehicle’ to make up for the delay and mistakes committed by OP No.1.
4. It is next averred that to the shock and dismay of the Complainants they came to know that on 02.08.20 OP No.1 had opened up/dismantled the engine of the said vehicle without any prior express approval or consent from the Complainants which has caused the wrongful loss to the Complainants. It is next averred that the OP No.1 is still in possession of the vehicle of the Complainants.  
5. OP No.1 instead of delivering the said vehicle in good working condition sent a legal demand notice dated 24.10.20 to the Complainants and the Complainants on 28.10.20 replied to the aforesaid legal notice.
6. Complainants in support of their case have filed a copy of the estimated bill dated 01.06.20, copy of the invoice dated 11.06.20, printout of the photographs of the vehicle, copy of the legal demand notice sent by OP No.1 and copy of reply to the legal demand notice of OP No.1.
7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants and have perused the material placed on record.
8. Complainants have impleaded Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. as OP No.2 who is the manufacturer, alleging that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect. However this Commission finds it hard to accept the contention that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect; as the Complainants had been using the said vehicle for 9 years, without facing any problems.
9. Complainants after having knowledge of the fact that the OP No.1 had opened up/dismantled the engine of the vehicle in question on 02.08.20, waited for almost 4 months to file the complaint against OPs for deficiency in service. This raises a doubt in the mind of Commission about the genuiness of the grievance.
10. It is next noticed from the legal notice dated 24.10.20 sent by OP No.1 to the Complainants that for the comfort and convenience of the Complainants a courtesy vehicle free of charge was sent to the Complainants on 25.06.20.  OP No.1 has sent a legal notice to the Complainants for not returning the said courtesy vehicle despite repeated requests and reminders.
11. Complainant received legal notice on 24.10.20 and replied to the notice on 28.10.20. They have filed the complaint in this Commission on 17.12.20.  The timeline or the dates of the notice received by OP and filing of the complaint case against OPs shows that the Complainants are indulging in pre-emptive litigation. Had the Complainants genuinely been aggrieved by the deficiency in service by OP No.1 they would have approached the Commission in August when they came to know about the dismantling of the engine of the vehicle. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complainants have approached this Commission not due to deficiency in service of OP No.1 but to escape any legal action from the OP No.1 seeking charges for non-returning of the courtesy vehicle.     
12. In light of the facts and circumstances above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Complainants as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.  

Announced on 04.02.2021.