District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.411/2018.
Date of Institution: 12.09.2018.
Date of Order: 21.12.2022
Rattan Singh, aged about 49 years son of Shri Murari Singh, Resident of Village Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Faridabad Motors Private Limited Plot NO. 916, Block-B, Sector-64, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, through its Directors/Principal Officers.
2. M/s. Eicher Polaris Private Limited, Regd. Office: 3rd floor, Select City Walk, A-3, District centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017 through its Directors/Principal Officers.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. R.K.Bhati, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sarvesh Kaushik, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Devdutt, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Mutix Auto Car having its Chasis No. MANDBRISO1103471DH and engine No. S7D8692992 Model MX RICH bearing registration NO. HR-29/AP-0441, which was duly registered form the Registration Authority, Ballabgarh form opposite party No.1 on 05.07.2017 for a total sum of Rs.3,49,000/- vide invoice No.2 dated 5.6.2017 duly issued by opposite party No.1. Infact, the above said vehicle got financed by the complainant with Bank of India, Tigaon Branch. Hence the complainant was to repay the finance amount in monthly installments. After purchasing the above said vehicle, the complainant started to use the same, but the said vehicle was never run in a proper manner, because it always becomes out of order, hence form time to time the complainant informed opposite party No.1 and even opposite party No.1 got repaired the said vehicle from time to time. At the time of selling the said vehicle, the opposite parties gave guarantee/warranty on account of manufacturing defect, if any, but unfortunately since the very beginning the said vehicle had been given various problems and the opposite parties had removed the defect therein. In fact, there was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and the fact was very much within the knowledge of the opposite parties, but despite of which the opposite parties had sold out the said defective vehicle to the complainant. Even the complainant made complaints to the opposite parties at their toll free number, but despite of which the opposite parties did not get repair the vehicle of the complainant, well in time. In the 2nd week of May 2018, the above said vehicle became break-down, because the cooling fan of the said vehicle was not working properly, due to the said reason, the engine of the said vehicle becomes very hot and it develops different noise and the speed of the said vehicle become very low. Hence the complainant visited opposite party No.1 alongwith his vehicle and complained about the said defects in his vehicle, then the opposite party No.1 took the said vehicle in its custody and assured that they would remove each and every defect therein, but to the surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties did not return back the said vehicle to the complainant. Even when the complainant contacted the opposite parties various times, then they did not give any satisfactory reply. Even the opposite party No.1 stated that there was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, so the same cannot be repaired and the quality of said vehicle was very poor. As the opposite parties had kept the vehicle of the complainant under their custody till date, hence due to the said reason the complainant had been suffering a huge loss of his livelihood @ Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- per day, for which the opposite parties were solely responsible in all respects. Besides this, the complainant had been suffering huge loss of account of mental tension, pain and suffering, because due to non-availability of his vehicle, he had been suffering huge loss in his livelihood, for which they were solely responsible in all respects. The complainant sent legal notice dated 17.7.2018 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) either to get exchange the above said defective vehicle i.e. Mutix Auto Car having its Chasis No.MANDBRBISO1103471DH and Engine No. S7D8692992 Model MX RICH bearing registration NO. HR-29/AP-0441 with another new one OR to return back the invoice amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchasing of vehicle till its realization.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite part No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.1 was the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2 company – M/s. Eicher Polaris Private Limited. In the month of March 2018, 2018 opposite party No.2 – company close down the manufacturing operations of Multix personal utility vehicle and terminated the agreement vide full & final settlement letter dated 22.05.2018 with opposite party No.1 and it was settled that all the warranty settlement, demo vehicle claim, stock vehicle, spare part stock settlement, sales & marketing pending claim settlement and compensation, free of cost BS4 vehicle spare parts at NDP will be provided by opposite party No.2 – company. In the month of March,2018 the opposite party No.1 closed the showroom at the premises plot No. 916, Block-B, Sector-64, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. It was submitted that the complainant purchased a new Multix Auto Car vehicle from opposite party No.1 on 05.06.2017. Opposite party No.1 serviced the vehicle as and when it came for service repair. In the month of August, 2018 it came to the knowledge of opposite party No.1 that the vehicle No. HR-29-AP-0441 had been left unattended in front of the above said locked premised of Opposite party No.1. The complainant left his vehicle without the information or intimation to opposite party No.1 in front of the premises. The company contacted the complainant and asked him to share problem otherwise to remove the vehicle from the spot and sent a notice dated 31.08.2018 to the complainant in this regard. The complainant neither remove his vehicle from the front of the locked premises of the opposite aprty No.1 company nor sent any reply to opposite party No.1-company. The above said vehicle was still standing in front of the locked premises but the complainant parked his vehicle without the intimation and information to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite part No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that it was submitted that vehicles bought from answering opposite parties requires routine maintenance and servicing as a result of normal wear and tear of the use of the vehicles. During the regular servicing of the vehicle, there were certain parameters and prescribed points that opposite party needs to follow. During servicing of vehicles, some consumables like filters, engine oil etc. were required to be changed and if other consumables were found less, then the same were also filled up or topped up. All consumables were on chargeable basis and hence were charged to the customers of their client. It was further submitted that the complainant bought a Mutix Auto Car model “MX RICH’ having chasis No. MANDBRISO1103471DH bearing registration NO. HR-29/AP-0441 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.3,49,000/-. As per the warranty guidelines and the user guide of the vehicle, the service of the vehicle became due and the complainant brought the vehicle for its first free service on 16.082017 with odometer reading of 4243 kms wherein the vehicle was given a general service and no issue was raised by the complainant . Thereafter, the complainant’s vehicle was serviced for the second free service on 7.10.2017 where the vehicle was given a MFSC-2. The complainant got the vehicle serviced again on 19.12.2017 with odometer reading of 8660 kms. wherein the engine oil and the injector R&R were replaced. Similarly, the third free service was carried out on 20.01.2018 with odometer reading of 9987 kms. the vehicle’s gear oil, engine oil, oil filter and shaft-pivot were changed. The complainant was making false and misleading allegations that his vehicle broke-down in the second week of May 2018 and that it suffers from manufacturing defects. The complainant had not relied on any documents in the present complaint to support any of the averments and was twisting the facts to his leisure. It was submitted that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect whatsoever. It was submitted that after sales service of opposite party No.2 was extremely thorough and any issue raised was thoroughly addressed and rectified. Thus, the claims made by the complainant in the complaint was baseless, incorrect and vehemently denied. The complaint filed was wrongful and appears to be ill-motivated and had only been issued to extract money from the opposite party. It was evident from the vehicle history that the complainant got his vehicle serviced and no issue of engine being hot or the vehicle breaking down were ever raised thus the present complaint ought to be dismissed outrightly. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Faridabad Motors Pvt. Ltd., with the prayer to a) either to get exchange the above said defective vehicle i.e. Mutix Auto Car having its Chasis No.MANDBRBISO1103471DH and Engine No. S7D8692992 Model MX RICH bearing registration NO. HR-29/AP-0441 with another new one OR to return back the invoice amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchasing of vehicle till its realization. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.C1 – Invoice,, Ex.C-2 – RC, Ex.C-3 – Multix Warranty Policy,, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex.C-5 & C-6 – postal receipts, Ex.C-7 - notice to Rattan Singh written by Faridabad Motors, Ex.C-8 – Reply to legal notice,, Ex.C-9 & C-10 – Postal receipts, Ex.C-11 – Aadhar card, Ex.C-12 –Risk Assumption letter,,Ex.C-13 – Insurance policy.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.R-1 –full and final settlement letter, Ex.R-2 – postal receipt, Ex.R-3 notice written by Faridabad Motors to complainant Rattan Singh.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2, Ex.RW2/1 - - power of attorney,, Ex.RW2/2 – Warranty policy, Ex.RW2/3 – Maintenance Schedule, Ex.RW2/4 – Vehicle History.
7. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has filed an application for appoint the LC namely Anup Kumar Technical Champion (Automobile Engineer) and giving the necessary direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to produce the vehicle in question to get inspect from the above said Automobile Engineer. On the other hand, counsel for opposite arty orally made No Objection on the abovesaid application. Application was allowed with the direction that the counsel for the opposite party will accompany the surveyor namely Anup Kumar on the date fixed i.e. 11.4.2022 and the Automobile Engineer was directed to visit the premises and to inspect the vehicle in question the same is lying with the custody of opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 and give the report on or before 25.4.2022. Shri Anup Kumar, Technician Champion Automobile Engineer, M/s. Ford Automobiles, Delhi was appointed as LC who has submitted his report on 02.05.2022.
8. After going through the evidence led by the parties as well as the inspection report of Expert i.e. Shri Anup Kumar Rana, Technician Champion Automobile Engineer, M/s. Ford Automobiles Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad, the Commission is of the opinion that this report is not authenticated because no qualification of Automobile Engineer is mentioned on the report and no letter head was used by the Automobile Engineer. Automobile Engineer is not approved by the IRDA. No licence number was mentioned in the expert report. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party has stated at Bar that it is procured report which cannot be considered.
9. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 21.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
