Haryana

Karnal

158/2012

Rashmi Pasricha W/o Baldev Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Sharma

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.158 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:15.03.2012

                                                              Date of decision:13.01.2017

 

Rashmi Pasricha wife of Shri Baldev Raj proprietor of M/s Krishana Enterprises (India) 660 New Prem Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/s Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. Karnal Delhi side by pass G.T.Road Karnal.

2. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. S.P. Koil Post, Chengal Pattu 603204 Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director.

                                                                        ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. S.D.Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.

                    Sh. Vikas Kashyap Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                  

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one car Fiesta 1.4 Duratirq TDCISXI ABS bearing chasis no.MAJBXXMRJB&R46891 and Engine no.8R46891 from opposite party no.1 in the month of June, 2008 and the same was got registered with registration authority at registration no.HR-05-X-0769. From the very beginning, the car was pulling towards left side. He took the same to workshop of opposite party no.1 on 25.06.2008. The car was repaired, but after sometime the same problem started. Again, he took the car to the workshop of opposite party no.1, but the defect could not be removed properly. He asked the opposite party no.2 to replace the parts, as there was manufacturing defect in the same, but the opposite parties did not replace those parts despite his repeated requests. He parked the car at the workshop of opposite party no.1 and report dated 13.7.2011 was prepared in that regard. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to which she suffered mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is not consumer as the car was purchased by her for business purpose; that the complainant is an abuse of process of law and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.1 on 25.06.2008 and complained about the pulling of the vehicle towards left side. The Engineer got done computerized wheel alignment to the satisfaction of the complainant.  On 2.7.2008, also the complainant pointed out same problem, therefore, wheel alignment was done again. The car was again brought to the workshop on 21.8.2008 for free service, which was done and wheel alignment was done. On 3.9.2008 the wheel alignment was also done. On 11.10.2008 paid service of the car was conducted and an amount of Rs.1280/- was charged from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop with the complaint that there was noise from the steering. On checking, it was found that the noise was due to rough road while steering the vehicle towards extreme right and left. No underbody damage or accidental mark found. Noise was coming from steering due to defective steering column assembly. At that time the vehicle was used for 17107 KM. On 24.01.2009 when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party, the same had already run 20000KM. Alignment of wheel was checked and it was found that the noise from the vehicle was due to rough road. On 30.01.2009, there was no complaint regarding the vehicle. Wheel alignment was checked on 13.02.2009. Thereafter, the complainant brought the vehicle on 16.06.2009 and 21.09.2009 for paid service. Wheel alignment was done on 28.10.2009. After a lapse of 1½ years, when the vehicle was used upto 153000 KMs. The complainant filed the present complaint with ulterior motive. Infact, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The opposite parties had done service to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been pleaded that pulling of the vehicle towards particular side could be due to varying tyre pressure in the tyres of the vehicle, road condition and wheel alignment. Wheel balancing get disturbed very easily if the road conditions are not good. Pulling of the vehicle to particular side cannot be attributed to any manufacturing defect. Moreover, the complainant had never made any complaint to the opposite party no.2. Had there been any manufacturing defect the vehicle could not be used for more than 150000 KMs. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and the complaint is false and frivolous. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Pawan Gupta Director Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Taops Kumar Moitra Exd.OP2/A and document  Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant had purchased the car from opposite party no.1 in June, 2008. The said car was manufactured by opposite party no.2. As per the allegations of the complainant there was manufacturing defect in some parts of the car due to which there was repeated problem. The car was pulling towards left side and there was noise from the steering while turning the car towards extreme right and left sides. The car was taken to the workshop of opposite party no.1 on 25.6.2008 and 2.7.2008 with the problem that the same was pulling towards left side and both the occasions computerized wheel alignment was done. On 3.9.2008 also wheel alignment was done. The car was again taken the workshop of opposite party no.1 with the problem of noise due to defect in steering column assembly.

8.                As per the written statement of opposite party no.1, every time the complaint of the complainant was attended to and necessary repairs were carried out and some parts were also replaced, therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 has submitted that the pulling of the vehicle towards particular side can be due to varying tyre pressure in the tyres of the vehicle, road condition and wheel alignment. Wheel balancing gets disturbed very easily if the road conditions are not good. Pulling of the vehicle to particular side cannot be attributed to any manufacturing defect.

9.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that the complainant did not get checked the car from Expert Mechanical Engineer to establish that there was any manufacturing defect in any part of the car. The car was used upto 153000 just after use of 1½ years. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the car, the same could not be used for covering such long distance. If, the defects were not removed from time to time by the opposite party no.1, then other problems could also occur in the car such as damage to the tyres and other parts, but neither it is the allegation of the complainant nor there is any such evidence. Complaint of the complainant was always attended to by opposite party no.1 and necessary repairs were carried out. There is no allegation of the complainant that opposite party no.1 had refused to repair the car or replace any part covered under the warranty. Mere allegation that some problems occurred in the while during the warranty does not lead to the conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in any part of the car. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has failed to prove that there was manufacturing defect in some parts of the car.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 13.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member