Delhi

North East

CC/307/2017

Chetan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Concorde Motors Limited - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 307/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Sh. Chetan Sharma S/o Sh. R.C Sharma R/o D 747, St. No. 19, Block D, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                       2.                       3.	M/s Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. Through its Proprietor/Director HCMR Complex, Main Wazirabad Road, Gokulpuri, Delhi-110094   Also at:- M/s Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. Through its Proprietor/Director Authorized Service Center 338 FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092   M/s Tata Motors Ltd, Through Its Manager/Managing Director Passenger Car Business Unit, 305,3rd Floor, Tower A, Signature Towers, South City 1, NH 8, Gurgaon 122001   Also at:- Ist Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Sansad Marg, Parliament Street, Delhi 110001   M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. TMFL Delhi Branch 11B/A, Second Floor, Tiwari House, Pusa Road, Regional Office, North New Delhi		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		17.10.17 01.04.24 26.06.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1.  The case of the Complainant has revealed from the record is that the Complainant booked a Tata Indigo eCS GLS car (CNG fitting) bearing no. DL 1ZA 0435 on 24.02.16 from Opposite Party No.1 against retail invoice dated 24.02.16 and the same was delivered on 05.03.16. It is stated that since beginning there is manufacturing defect and fault in car as it created problems from the date of its purchase and has not been working properly. Thereafter Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 at Patparganj on 15.04.16 but defect could not be cured. Thereafter Complainant again visited service centre on 24.05.16 and requested to remove the problem. The Complainant continuously visited Opposite Party No.2 but the defects were not resolved. The official of Opposite Party No.1 advised Complainant to take vehicle at Gurgaon service centre to resolve the defects and Complainant accordingly take the vehicle but the problem could not be resolved. It is stated that the vehicle is still not working properly and is creating problems. The Complainant had also served legal notice dated 07.09.17 to Opposite Parties but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to pay/reimburse the full matured amount or to replace this faulty car to the new one and to deliver the new one to the Complainant. He further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/-as loss of earning to the Complainant from the date of filing of the petition till its decision as he was to pay EMIs from this earning from the vehicle also and for loss of livelihood. He also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Vide order dated 18.01.18 the right of Opposite Party No.1 to file the written statement was closed. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore Opposite Party No.3 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 14.08.18. Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.19.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant was negligent and irregular in respect of the maintenance of the car in question. It is stated that the Complainant was not carrying out the regular mandatory service. The Complainant also refused certain repair works and replacement of the parts which were required. This act of the Complainant amounts to breach of warranty. It is stated that the Complainant has failed to show that there was a manufacturing defect in the car. It is submitted that the car was purchased on 24.02.17 and till 22.08.17 it had covered 82,086 kms which shows that the vehicle was not having any defect. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint maybe dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of                    Sh. Sharmendra Chaudhry, Manager Law with Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 has been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. None has appeared on behalf of the Complainant for addressing argument despite grant of several opportunities. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.
8. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a car from Opposite Party No.1 and the said car was having some manufacturing defect from the very beginning. His case is that he visited several times at the service centre of Opposite Party No.2 but the said defect could not be cured. The Complainant  also took the car to some service centre in Gurgaon and there also the defect could not be cured. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no manufacturing defect in the car. Its case is that during the first 6 month after its purchase, the car had run more than 82,000 kms and this shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the car.
9. The burden to prove that there was some manufacturing defect in the car lies upon the Complainant. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a judgment reported as I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) held that if no expert evidence is produce to prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the alleged defects cannot be termed as manufacturing defects.
10. In the present case, the Complainant did not produce any expert evidence in order to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the car and having regard to the fact that during the first 6 months after the purchase of the car the car had run more than 82,000 kms, we are of the opinion that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Order announced on 26.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)               Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President