Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 492.
Instituted on : 23.08.2017.
Decided on : 10.07.2019.
Darshan Jangra son of Sukhdev Singh resident of Vijay Nagar, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Badhwar Automobile (P) Ltd. Sonepat Road, Near CSD Canteen, Rohtak through its Proprietor/Responsible persons/dealers.
- General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Customer Assistance Center Plot No.15, Echelon Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon-12001 Through its Managing Director/Responsible persons/manufacturer.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Kulvinder Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. L.S.Phougat, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Cheverolet Beat CT Diesel car bearing Chassis No.MA6BFBGNBBT065017, Engine no.10AB5Z112060025 for a sum of Rs.538000/- from the respondent no.1. That the opposite parties given warranty of said vehicle for 3 years or upto 300000/- kms but the opposite party no.1 did not hand over any original bill and other documents to the appellant/complainant on the date of sale and delivery of the said vehicle till today. Therefore, the complainant could not get the vehicle registered with registering authority and unable to get its registration number. That the vehicle in question is defective from the very beginning because its breaks are Jam and its engine is lying defective and not in working condition. Therefore, complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties and requested for repairing the vehicle or to replace the same with new one and also to hand over the original documents of the vehicle in question but any heed was not paid to his requests. So the complainant served a legal notice dated 19.12.2011 upon the Ops but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the vehicle with new one or to pay the cost of vehicle i.e. Rs.538000/- and compensation of Rs.200000/- for causing mental tension and harassment alongwith interest to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has denied the facts that the original bill and other documents were not handed over to the complainant on the date of sale. That complainant never contacted the opposite party No.1 and even never came for 1st service and came to the workshop of opposite party No.1 only on 28.10.2011 for 2nd free service. The service was done free of cost. The first service was to be done on 5000 Km and the 2nd was due on 10000 km but the complainant came for second service at 11012 km. That complainant was very much negligent and never cared the vehicle. The complainant did not disclose the total kilometers already consumed by the complainant. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that there was no defect in the vehicle in question. That as per the record of vehicle history and maintenance, the vehicle has been sold on 30 August, 2011. From the entry in the record of vehicle history and maintenance dated 29.10.2011, it may be seen that the vehicle at that point of time had travelled 11012 kms. This works out at an outstanding rate of daily running of over 190 kilometers, which demolishes any allegation of any manufacturing defect in its engine or in its running. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 24.09.2018 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 12.03.2019. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2W/A, documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 and closed his evidence on dated 14.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, grievance of complainant is that the vehicle in question has manufacturing defect and has prayed for directing the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle or to refund the price. To prove his complaint, he has placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11. Complainant has placed on record report of one Kalu Ram Motor Garage, Near Utsav Hotel, Safidon Gate, Jind. As per this report, the vehicle having Chassis No.MA6BFBGNBBT065017, Engine no.10AB5Z112060025 model 2011, was totally damaged and unable to ply on the road. All the parts of the vehicle has been damaged and the company is responsible. On the other hand, respondent no.1 has pleaded that the vehicle was sold by the respondent no.1 and the complainant visited in the workshop only on 28.10.2011 for free service. In fact, first service of the vehicle was to be done on 5000 kms and 2nd on 10000 kms. But the complainant came in the workshop when he plied the vehicle upto 11012 kms. and the service was done free of costs. Respondent no.1 also argued that the complainant is very much careless and he has not serviced his vehicle well within time or as per the instructions of the company. Moreover, the breaks of the vehicle were in good condition and he had not made any complaint regarding break jam at the time of his service. To prove this fact, OP No.1 has placed on record the job sheet which is Ex.R1. Respondent no.2 has also pleaded that there was no defect in the vehicle in question and that complainant had not made any complaint regarding brake jam at the time of service.
7. The perusal of documents itself shows that the complainant approached only once for the service of the vehicle to the respondent no.1 and the vehicle was serviced by the respondent no.1 to the satisfaction of complainant because the complainant has not made any complaint regarding the defect of vehicle at the time of service to the respondent no.1 & 2. The complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle was not in a working condition and he was unable to ply the same. The complainant placed on record a report Ex.C7. Through this document, he wants to prove that the vehicle is totally damaged and he is unable to ply the same but perusal of this report itself shows that the report was issued on dated 29.08.2016 i.e. after a gap of 5 years from the date of service of vehicle by the respondent no.1. The complainant has not placed on record any photographs or bills of repair etc. to prove that vehicle has manufacturing defect and he is unable to ply the same. Moreover, in the report Ex.C7, the issuing person has not mentioned that how much the vehicle has been run on dated 29.08.2016. If a vehicle has a defect like break jam and the same was not rectified by the respondents, in that situation, the complainant can avail other remedy and to get repair his vehicle from outside but he failed to do so. As such, the law relied upon by ld. counsel for the complainant in 2016(4)C.P.R 206 titled as NISSAN Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Giraj Kisore is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as the facts of the present case are different.
8. After going through the file and hearing the parties, we have observed that in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, complainant has failed to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and has also failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
