Delhi

StateCommission

CC/253/2018

M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S INDRAPRASTHA AUTOMOBILE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

PAWAN BEDI

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

.IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Dates of Arguments:04.04.18  

                                                                    Date of Decision:     09.04.18 

Complaint No.253/2018

In the matter of:

M/s Kalpana Biri MFG. Co. Pvt. Ld.

At: 1/32, Lalita Park

Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                   ….Complainant

                                                            Versus

 

1.         M/s Indraprastha Automobile

            Authorised  Sales Office pf

            M/s Mahindra & Mahindra

            Office at: 11/175, New Moti Nagar

            New Delhi-110015.

            Through authorized representative/HOD

 

            Workshop: B-72/4, Wazirpur

            New Delhi-52.

 

2.         M/s Sri Durga Automobiles

            Authorised Sales Service Spares of

            M/s Mahindra & Mahindra

            At: 55, Saguru Ram Singh Marg

Moti Nagar, Near Kirti Nagar

Metro Station, New Delhi-110015.

Through authorized representative/HOD

 

3.         M/s Mahindra & Mahindra

            Delhi Corporate Office

            2-A, Mahindra Tower, First Floor

            Bhikajicama Palace, New Delhi-66.

            Through authorized representative/HOD                                                …Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER JUDICIAL)

                                                                        JUDGEMENT

            The complainant purchased a car make Mahindra Rexton (manufactured by Opposite Party No. 3) which has Registration No. DL-8CAC-0257 from OP No.1 on 24.01.13 for Rs.20,46,233/-.  OP 2 is authorized service centre of OP 1 and provide complete service as well as repair work to vehicles pertaining to OP 3.  Till 2-3 service i.e. till 26.12.13 as well as till 10000 km working condition of the vehicle was normal.  But just after second service on 27.12.13 minor problem suddenly came in the car due to which vehicle was brought to OP No. 2.  Said minor problem was removed.  But thereafter every 1000 km. to5000 km clutch problem in the vehicle became to come and since then number of times the vehicle was brought to OP No. 2 for servicing. In para No. 5 of the complaint date of the complaints has been given as 27.03.14, 26.11.14, 19.04.15, 13.05.15, 07.11.15, 16.03.16, 02.12.16 and on 13.02.17.  Vehicle was total break down.

2.         On 09.10.15 OP No. 2 told the complainant that vehicle was not under warranty and demanded Rs. 37,162/- to extend the warranty. The complainant paid the same.  On 15.03.16 OP No. 2 demanded the same money from the complainant and repaid Rs. 21,496/- on 13.02.17.  The  vehicle suddenly broke down on road due to which the same was towed away from ITO Delhi to Rama Road, Delhi.  On 19.03.17, he was informed on  phone byOP No. 2 that the problem has been removed and demand of Rs. 25,957/- was raised.  Complainant  stated that he has already  paid  a huge amount.  Since then the vehicle is lying in the workshop No.OP 3.  OPs are liable to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment, loss of time and uncomfort..   Hence this complaint for refund of the purchase price of the car with interest @ 24% per annum and repair charges, Rs. 10,00,000/-  for compensation.

4.         We have gone through the material on record and her arguments for the purpose of admission.  Firstly according to the complainant he came to know about the defect on 27.12.13.  Complaint having been filed on 28.02.18 after more than 4 years is barred by limitation. Secondly the complainant has used the car for more than 5 years and now he wants refund of entire amount without interest @ 24% per annum which will be more than principal amount .  In addition he also wants compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

5.         Consumer Act is not meant for such cases.

6.         Moreover a  car with manufacturing defect could not have run 10,000 km. in a year.

            Complaint is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                       (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                         MEMBER(JUDICIAL)