Punjab

Sangrur

CC/43/2015

Hardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Hemant Goyal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajay Aggarwal

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  43

                                                Instituted on:    21.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.07.2015

 

Hardeep Singh aged 40 years son of Shri Jagroop Singh R/o Vill. Kohrian, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, now residing at Near Gurudwara Sahib, Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Uppali Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Hemant Goyal Motors, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its MD/Partner/Proprietor.

2.             M/s. Hemant Goyal Motors (P) Ltd. Rajprua Road, Opp. SST Nagar, Patiala through its M.D./Partner/Proprietor.

3.             M/s. Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, PCNTDA, Sector 15 & 15A, Taluka Haveli, Chikhali, Pune-410501 through its MD/Partner/Proprietor.

 

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ajay Bansal, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri Navit Puri, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Exparte.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hardeep Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 1.2.2014, the complainant purchased one TATA Sumo Gold Ex. LMV car from OP number 1 for Rs.6,40,000/-. It is further averred that the car in question has been manufactured by OP number 3.  It is further averred that at the time of purchasing the said vehicle, OP number 1 told the complainant that this vehicle is of 2012 model  and has ran about 1100 KM, as such a discount of Rs.1,40,000/- was given whereas the actual price of the vehicle was Rs.7,80,000/-.  It is further stated by Op number 1 to the complainant that he will get full guarantee and warranty. It is further stated that in the month of November, 2014 the complainant approached OP number 1 and complained that the colour of the vehicle has started to damage, then OP number 1 called the complainant at his Patiala office and after inspection by OP number 2, it was stated that they are ready to change both the doors, front and backside with new one free of cost. But on the next day, OP number 1 informed that your claim has been rejected by the company as this is an accidental case and if you want to get changed the said parts, then the complainant is required to pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- approximate.  It is stated further that the vehicle in question never met with an accident.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the parts of the vehicle free of cost with new one and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 15.4.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is alleging cheating and fraud against the OPs and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question.  But, the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the vehicle has been manufactured by OP and it passes through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicle are marketed only after that.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is stated further that the vehicle in question has been purchased for commercial activities and that the vehicle in question has covered a distance of 16970 KMs as on 27.11.2014, which speaks extensive usage of the vehicle.  It is further stated that the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of defects in engine without relying on any expert report from a recognised laboratory.  It is stated further that the vehicle purchased by complainant’s father is of the highest quality and the vehicle was delivered after full satisfaction.   It is also stated that each and every vehicle manufactured at the factory of the OP has to undergo stages of chassis frame drop, frame inversion, engine drop, cab/cowl drop and final inspection and vehicle roll out, when the quality inspectors at the respective stage checks the history card and inspects to confirm all aggregate and chassis fitments between the earlier stage.  On merits,  it is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant had purchased the car in question after availing a discount of Rs.1,40,000/- and the entire sale transaction has been done between the complainant and OP number 2.  It has been further denied by OP number 3 that in the month of November, 2014 the colour of the vehicle started to damage.  It has been stated further that the complainant brought the vehicle in question on 27.11.2014 at 16970 KMs for availing routine service at the workshop of OP number 2 and the complainant did not report any complaint of paint peeling off.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have also been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of RC, Ex.C-2 copy of service book, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt,  Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of warranty card, Ex.C-7 copy of 4^th free coupon, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-13 photographs and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question  on 1.2.2014 for Rs.6,40,000/- at a discount of Rs.1,40,000/- as its actual price was Rs.7,80,000/- as the vehicle was of 2012 model and it had already run about 1100 KMs.  In the present case, the only grievance of the complainant is that the colour of the vehicle has started to damage in the month of November, 2014 and he approached the OP number 2 to remove the grievance.  But, the complainant has not produced any job order to show that he ever approached the complainant in the month of November, 2014 to get the problem of colour solved.   The learned counsel for the complainant has alleged further that the OPs did nothing despite having guarantee and warranty of the vehicle.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant never approached it for any colour problem etc. nor he lodged any complaint at the time of getting free service from the OPs.           

8.             A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the complainant has not produced any expert report to show that the colour of the vehicle is defective one nor has produced any documentary evidence to show that he ever approached the Ops at any time for getting the problem of removal of colour resolved.  There is nothing on record produced by the complainant to support his contention that the OPs demanded an amount of Rs.80,000/- for replacing the various parts as mentioned in the complaint.  Further the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence that the supplied vehicle by the OPs to the complainant was an accidental one.   In the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 13, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member