Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 64.
Instituted on : 20.01.2016.
Decided on : 06.03.2018.
Joginder Balhara s/o Sh. Krishan Balhara, resident of H.No.337/34, Janta Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Lochab Motors Company Pvt. Ltd. Authorised Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Rohtak Tower, Delhi Bypass, Rohtak(Through its Manager/Prop./Incharge/Authoirsed person).
- M/s Mahindra & Mahindra(Authorised Service Centre M/s Lochab Motors Company Ltd. Workshop, Opp Nandal Petrol Pump, Ram Gopal Colony, Delhi Bypass, Rohtak(Through its Manager/Prop./ In-charge/Authorised person).
- M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001.(Through its Manager/Prop./Incharge/Authorised person).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Anil Balhara, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. That on 05.04.2013 complainant has purchased a vehicle Scorpio VLX-AIRBAG-BS4-7SF from the opposite party No.1 after making payment of Rs.1106000/-. That the services of the said vehicle has been done by the authorized service station i.e. opposite party No.2 time and again. That on 09.04.2013 the consumer paid Rs.5500/- for Antirust and paint protection and washing etc. and the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that vehicle will be protected from the rust problem. That as per the report of Mahindra Technical information system dated 19.08.2015 vehicle is having defect of rusting problem on both front funder joint with rear RHS tyre and this is a manufacturing defect. That the said vehicle was got repaired by the authorized Mahindra & Mahindra Technical information system on same day. That after a period of 3/4 months same problem was reported in the said vehicle and as per version of Mahindra Service Agency this is manufacturing defect and not possible to get it permanently rectified by way of repair. That the complainant approached to opposite party No.1 to replace the vehicle as the manufacturing defect could not be removable totally. Therefore the vehicle should be replaced but they did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. Hence this complaint. That the vehicle is under warranty cover and the opposite parties are liable to perform their liabilities to repair/replace the vehicle immediately. Complainant also prayed to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.5500/- for litigation and interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite parties.
2. After service of notice, opposite parties filed their written statement has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against the necessary respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the “Black’s Law Dictionary” term “Manufacturing defect” means “A Deviation from designs specifications during production resulting in a product’s defect, frailty or shortcoming”. The definition makes it quite clear that the defect should accrue ‘during production’. In the present case the alleged defect has arisen far from the production tenure. That the complainant is neither having any expertise nor is an automotive expert to state that the vehicle in question, is having a manufacturing defect. Further it is submitted that rust in the vehicle crop up usually due to external factors and improper usage, maintenance of the vehicle. A perusal of the warranty clause clearly shows that the complainant has no case, as the defect of paint/rust is not covered under warranty because the rusting on the vehicle depends upon various external factors, such as climate, parking spot, water used for cleaning and washing, products such as car washing soap, creams and polishes etc. therefore it is not covered under warranty. Neither there is/was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in any manner nor the vehicle of the complainant was having any manufacturing defect.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C81 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/2 and closed his evidence.
4. After perusal of the documents it is observed that when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 & 2 for the first time, two and half years had already passed, by end the vehicle was out of original warranty. Even if the vehicle would have been in warranty period, the terms and conditions of the warranty booklet under standard warranty Ex.R2/2 and Ex.R3/3 clearly states that any change in paint is not covered.
5. Even as per extended warranty Ex.R3/2, “Any change, damage or deterioration in paint is not covered under extended warranty”.
6. In our opinion no case is made out for our indulgence. Hence the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.03.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………
Ved Pal, Member
