Haryana

Ambala

CC/40/2014

Rakesh Chandra Vedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KRISHNA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

In person.

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.:40 of 2014

Date of Institution  : 29.01.2014

Date of decision     : 01.10.2015

Rakesh Chandra Vedi son of Late Shri Harish Chandra Vedi R/o H.No.671, Sector-7, Housing Board Colony, Ambala City ( Haryana) 134003.

                                                                                       ……Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Krishna Motors, 98 B-8, Prem Nagar, Ambala City (Dealer Code:DK 228).

2.       Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited, D-1 Block, Plot No.18/2, MIDC Chinchwad, Pune -411019  (Customer Care).

3.       Hind Motor Stores (India), 1708-09, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt Haryana-133001 (Authorized dealer and service provider of Mahindra Two wheelers).

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPINDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Complainant  in person.

                   Sh. Puneet Sirpaul, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.

                   Ops No.1 & 3 given up.

ORDER.

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Mahindra Duro 125 DZ Scooter bearing regn. No.HR01AE-2737 from the OP No.1 on 27.04.2012. After purchase of one month, the scooter started giving trouble in its start so the complainant reported the matter to OP No.1 who advised him to bring the vehicle in agency. Accordingly, the scooter was brought to Agency where it was repaired temporarily but defects of the vehicle was not disclosed to the complainant. Thereafter, on 29.08.2012, problem again occurred in the vehicle qua stopping frequently and not starting,  then the matter was again reported to OP No.1 who again told to bring the vehicle to their shop/workshop and  on checking, Carburetor & sparking plug changed and OP No.1  suggested to contact their representative/service engineer through phone or by customer care in case of any problem in future or for any repair/service etc. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the vehicle again started giving trouble within one month of its service and this time OP No.1 asked the complainant to leave the vehicle at his workshop for complete check-up of the vehicle and thus the complainant left the vehicle from 03.09.2012 to 07.09.2012 at their workshop for its checkup & repair etc. but no improvement  took place in the starting problem of the scooter in question even after leaving  the vehicle for 5 days at workshop OP No.1.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP No.2 and lodged various complaints as under:-

1. INB5457 dated 01.12.2012
2. INB11770 dated 08.08.2013
3. INB12007 dated 16.08.2013
4. INB12678 dated 28.08.2013
5. INB17855 dated 06.01.2014

                   Besides it, the complainant also contacted online on National Consumer Helpline Website having complaint docket No.00502836 dated 03.12.2013. It has been further alleged by the complainant that  the vehicle became out of order on 07.08.2013 and again complaint lodged with OP No.2 but they did not pay any attention and after a gap of 16 days, the OP No.2 sent 2 mechanics who managed to start the vehicle. During the said period, the vehicle remained standing at home and complainant has to suffer a lot physically as well as mentally & economically. The complainant has further alleged that being a senior citizen, he has to suffer a lot due to stoppage of vehicle on the road and thereafter the vehicle was brought to home through loading in Auto Rickshaw or Rehri by spending Rs.500-600 many a times. On 28.08.2013, the vehicle became out of order just after 7-8 days of its repair and thus the whole matter was also reported to Media at CNBC Awaz Channel in their consumer protection show ‘Pehredaar” and they highlighted  the problem in their programme twice telecasted on 21.09.2013 and 23.11.2013. After first show telecast, the OP No.2 approached the complainant and offered verbally to extend warranty for further one year but the same was not extended.  Thereafter, the complainant also went to OP No.2 i.e. registered customer care office at Pune to meet customer care authorities on 06.01.2014 and explained all the problems but they refused to refund money or replace the vehicle with new one. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para on the ground of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

2.                Notices were issued to the Ops. During the course of proceedings, Ops No.1 & 3 were given up by the complainant on 14.05.2014 but OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and that the relationship between the Ops No.1 & 2 are on principal to principal basis and thus answering OP is not liable for any act, omission, assurance or commission  done by the dealer i.e. OP No.1. On merits, purchase of the vehicle by complainant as well as liability of answering OP to the extent of terms & conditions as mentioned in the service-cum- Warranty Booklet have been admitted. At the same time, it has also been contended by the Op that the vehicle in question was though having two years warranty but there is no provision for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of vehicle under the warranty conditions. It has been further stated by the OP that complete check up of the vehicle of  complainant was done without single penny and no problem was found in the vehicle. It has been further contended by the Op that first complaint was made by complainant on 01.12.2012 and the second complaint was allegedly made on 08.08.2013 i.e. after  the span of eight months which itself shows that the vehicle is in perfect and OK condition and as such there is no such manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged in the complaint.  It has been further contended by the OP No.2 that to satisfy the complainant, the Mileage test was also conducted and vehicle gave the mileage of 51 km per liter.   Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs have been made.  However, in the last para of reply, Op No.2 has submitted that “even now, the answering respondents are ready to get the vehicle repaired, as per warranty conditions, if Hon’ble Forum directs so.”

3.                To prove his case, complainant tendered his  affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Vijayender Singh, Legal Manager of OP No.2 as Annexure RX and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the record very carefully. The main grouse of the complainant is that the vehicle in question purchased by him from Ops remained defective time & again and despite repeated visits & requests to the Ops, vehicle in dispute neither repaired properly nor replaced nor its cost was returned. As such, the complainant has prayed that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to him besides committing unfair trade practice.

                   On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 argued that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect and as & when complainant brought the vehicle for its service or for removing any defect, it was treated with utmost care and repaired/serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant.

5.                After hearing both the parties and considering the facts & records of the present case, it is admitted fact on record that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide document Annexures  C-7 & C-8 and the vehicle in question was having warranty for two years as submitted by OP No.2 in para No.2 of the reply on merits. Further as per Annexures C-4 & C-5, the vehicle was having starting problem during the warranty period which was not properly rectified by the Ops and the said version of complainant is proved from the document Annexure C-4 which is Customer Satisfaction Letter whereupon the complainant has made specific remarks that ‘started temporarily not up to the satisfaction’ for which the complainant has placed on record several complaints made to the Ops but of no avail whereas the contention of the OP No.2 that the vehicle is not having any defect is not tenable as they failed to rectify the defects of the vehicle upto the satisfaction of the complainant and also failed to file any affidavit of Service Engineer/Technical Person of the company regarding no any defects in the vehicle in question. Further as per warranty terms and conditions, the vehicle was having warranty for two years i.e. upto 26.04.2014 but it became defective  on 22.08.2013 i.e. within its warranty period and Ops failed to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant as clear from the contents of Annexure C-4. Besides it, the stand taken by OP No.2 that he is not liable for any deficiency in service of OP No.1 since the relationship between him and OP No.1 is principal to principal basis is also having no effect in the case of complainant as the complainant is nowhere a party to the agreement, if any, executed between Op No.1 & OP No.2 in this regard though not placed on the court file by OP No.2.  So, in these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the OPs are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and are bound to rectify the defects in the vehicle in question as OP NO.2 has also volunteered  in last para of the reply that “answering respondents are ready to get the vehicle repaired as per warranty conditions, if Hon’ble Forum directs”.         

                    In view of the facts discussed above, we allow the present complaint and directs the Op No.2 to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order:-

(i)      To rectify the defects of  the vehicle in question of the complainant and handover to him in perfectly working condition to his entire satisfaction.

(ii)     To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and punitive damages etc.

(iii)    Also to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation costs etc.      

              Further the award/directions issued above must be complied with by the Ops within the stipulated period otherwise the amount shall fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

ANNOUNCED: 01/10/2015                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                                                 (A.K. SARDANA)

                                               PRESIDENT        

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                             MEMBER