BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.115 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 12.04.2019

      Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

Gurwinder Singh son of Sakattar Singh resident of Kacha Pahuwind Road, Ward No.9, Bhikiwind, Tehsil Patti, Distt. Tarn Taran.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Makkar Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar Phagwara Road,         Jalandhar through its General Manager.

 2.      Mahindra and Mahindra Automotive, Sector 89, MIDC, Satpur        Road No.17, Nasik, Maharashtra through its Authorized   Signatory.

3.       Mahindra and Mahindra Automotive, Corporate Office:2-A,    Mahindra Tower, Bhikaji Cama Place, Near Punjab National     Bank, New Delhi-110066 through its Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Sushant Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Rakesh Dhir, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a brand new Mahindra Scorpio S-11 for a sum of Rs.15,77,037/- on 28.11.2018 from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 28.11.2018. On 4.12.2018 when the complainant cleaning the above said vehicle and noticed that there are two and three dents on the roof of vehicle and when the complainant examined thoroughly also found some cracks and denting painting work were done on the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and complaint to this regard that the work of denting and painting upon the above said brand new vehicle i.e. Mahindra Scorpio but the OPs did not heed on the genuine request of the complainant and flatly refused to do anything about that. Many requests made by the complainant to the OPs to admit the claim of the complainant and take back the above said vehicle and give him a brand new vehicle i.e. Mahindra Scorpio but the OPs did not heed on the genuine requests of the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 10.1.2019 upon the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.16,63,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.800/- as fee for making complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is vague and evasive. It is further averred that the complaint under reply is a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering opposite party to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainant. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same has not been filed under the Consumer Protection Act as such is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complainant is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit. Complainant has approached the Forum with soiled hands and has made the complainant in order to raise premeditated, false and frivolous dispute to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant does not falls under the definition of Consumer. Moreover, the complainant had filed the present complaint on false and concocted facts and the complainant himself is a wrong doer and it is settled law that a person who comes to the court with soil hands is not entitled to any relief. The complainant has not disclosed the facts to his counsel and as a result has managed to got served the false and frivolous legal notice upon the OP No.1 which was duly replied. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant has served a legal notice, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OPs No.2 & 3 filed its separate joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OPs No.2 and 3 are not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commission of any act by its dealers. Thus, in view of the above said, the complainant is not the consumer of answering OP. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen against the answering OP and in favour of the complainant, as the complainant has failed to make out a case for any deficiency on the part of answering OP, the instant complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law and no cause of action arises in favour of complainant therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has stated false and misleading facts knowingly and with deliberate intention to malign the OP-Company and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from this Forum. The complainant has failed to disclose any deficiency in service. There is no instance mentioned in the complaint which shows that allegations are true. It is further averred that perusal of the complaint would show that complaint merely consists of vague and baseless allegations and complainant has miserably failed to point out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no expert opinion on record in order to establish the allegations leveled in the complaint, the complaint is nothing but bundle of lies and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the Complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the Complainant. So, the replying OPs No. 2 and 3 is entitled to get special costs from the Complainant under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the new Mahindra Scorpio S-11 for a sum of Rs.15,77,037/- on 28.11.2018 from the OP and it is also admitted that the vehicle was got insured from the National Insurance Company and the same was Dep Cap insurance, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the new Mahindra Scorpio S-11 for a sum of Rs.15,77,037/- on 28.11.2018 from OP. Copy of the RC has been proved as Ex.C-1, copy of delivery challan Ex.C-3, copy of invoice showing the purchase of the Scorpio S-11 Ex.C-4/A.

7.                The complainant has alleged that on 04.12.2018 when he was cleaning the vehicle, he found that there was two and three dents on the roof of the vehicle and when he examined thoroughly, he found cracks and denting painting work was done on the vehicle. This fact has been denied by the OP. It has been alleged by the OP that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant checked the vehicle thoroughly and was satisfied. Insurance was also got done. At the time of delivery, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle in good condition. He never raised any objection at that time nor there was any alleged denting and painting. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant after checking the same number of times. He has raised allegation against the complainant that the complainant threatened the OPs when the vehicle was brought to them. Complaint against the complainant was also given to the Incharge Police Post, Paragpur.

8.                Now the point to be considered is as to whether there was a denting or painting at the time of the purchase of the vehicle. It is not disputed that the vehicle was got insured from the National Insurance Company and the same was Dep Cap insurance. The complainant has produced on record the photographs Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10. Perusal of these photographs apparently shows the dents on the roof of the vehicle, patches showing that the denting and painting was done on the roof of the vehicle. There is no dispute that at the time of the delivery of the vehicle, the same is being handed over to the satisfaction of the complainant, but since the denting and painting was on the roof of the vehicle it did not come to the notice of the complainant as submitted by the complainant. It is not the case of the OP that these cracks and dents has occurred due to any accident during the period, the vehicle remained with the complainant, the facts remains that the vehicle is showing the dents and patches on the roof of the vehicle. The vehicle was purchased on 28.11.2018 and the dents were found after 6 days of the purchase. It cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that within 6 days there will be denting, cracks due to fault of the complainant and there will also be painting. So, this is clear that there were dents and cracks and painting was done on the roof of the vehicle. Copy of the complaint has been filed by the OP Ex.OP-A raising allegations against the complainant being aggressive. This complaint was moved to Incharge, Police Post Paragpur and the matter is to be decided by the Incharge, Police Post Paragpur. No final report of enquiry has been filed on record by OP to prove the complainant is guilty and negligent himself. The job sheet has been proved by the complainant as well as the OP which is Ex.C-5/Ex.OP-F. Perusal of this document shows the dents and scratches on the body of the vehicle. Ex.OPG is repair order. Though, it has been alleged that the complainant received the vehicle in a satisfactory manner, but there is no mention of the fact in the repair orders, what was repaired by the OPs or if there were any dents or cracks or not. The complainant in his additional evidence has produced the bill of the expenditures spent by the complainant for the repair of the vehicle which was got done by the complainant on 02.02.2019 from Happy Motor Garage, Amritsar. The bill has been proved as Ex.C-15. Perusal of this bill shows that the vehicle was repaired and roof of the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio PB-46-AC-2784 was done denting and painting for Rs.29,780/-. Perusal of Ex.OPA shows that when the complainant asked the staff of the OPs to repair the vehicle free of cost in aggressive tone, the staff refused, meaning thereby that the vehicle was not repaired by the complainant which admittedly as per job sheet was sent to the OPs for repair and there were allegedly dents and scratches on the vehicle. This shows that the complainant had to get the same repaired from private mechanic and the bill has been proved, it does not require any further evidence as the trial in Consumer Commission are summary in nature. So, from the overall circumstances, the case of the complainant is fully proved and there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief.  

9.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay the denting and painting charges i.e. Rs.29,780/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repair as per Ex.C-15 till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.11.2023         Member                          Member           President