BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.589 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 11.12.2019

      Date of Decision: 18.04.2023

Amandeep daughter of Sukhdev Singh, Resident of Village Gehlaran, P. O. Behram Sarishta, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s P. S. Auto authorized Sub-Dealer TVS Motor Company Ltd.     Near Truck Union, G. T. Road, Bhogpur.

2.       M/s TVS Motors Company, Chaitanya, No.12, Khader Nawaz          Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 Ph:044 28332115    Fax:044 28332113.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. D. K. Jassi, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OP No.1 Withdrawn.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased TVS Jupiter, (BS IV) bearing registration no.PB-08-EE-9703, CH. No.: MD626EG43J3993987, Eng. No. EG49J1301643 from OP No.1 vide Invoice No.87 dated 27.11.2018, worth Rs.53,900 /- at Bhopgur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar for her personal use. At the time of purchase of above said vehicle the OPs have given a warranty of one year of above said vehicle. After one month the purchase of above said vehicle in question the complainant found that there is inherent defect in engine and there is problem in race i.e. to the effect after the speed of 55-60 kilometer its engine automatically turns off and there was also a problem in the breaks i.e. some time when the complainant apply breaks the vehicle in question then the vehicle turns very heavy and breaks are jammed and the vehicle stops moving, there was also a problem in meter as the petrol tank show empty although there is ample petrol in vehicle. The complainant immediately took the vehicle in question to the OP No.1 and there the be OP No.1 told the complainant that the above said problems of the vehicle in question but he checked the vehicle many times, but he was not able to solve the fault of the vehicle and he was not able to give satisfactory reply. Inspite of that the above said problems of the vehicle in question continued. The complainant again went to the OP No.1 for rectifying the defect but the OP tried their best to rectify the same but all in vain. Further the complainant use to get the service of the vehicle in question regularly from OP No.1 and thereafter the complainant went to other authorized service station of the OP No.2 and got the vehicle repaired but the problem continue to persist. The complainant had been visiting the office of OPs many times to get rectified the defect in vehicle and the OP No.1 took the vehicle in question in his workshop for many days to rectify the defect but all in vain. Thereafter the complainant had written complaints to the OP through e-mail on 28.6.2019 but again the OP did not take any action to rectify the defect and again on 03.07.2019 the complainant e-mail to the customer care of OP No.2 and the complaint 139794 was issued but till date no action has been taken by the OPs to rectify the defect in the vehicle. The complainant has suffered a mental tension, agony, loss of finance due to inherent defect in the vehicle in question and as a result the complainant has suffered financial loss also 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  replace the vehicle in question by giving new one to the complainant or the sale consideration of the vehicle in question be refunded to the complainant alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension agony, financial loss, harassment meted out to the complainant and any other relief which the Commission may deem fit may kindly be given to the complainant for the reasons stated above, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. The OP No.1 is neither necessary party nor proper party and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further averred that no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant against the OP No. 1 nor there is any deficiency or negligence in providing service to the complainant by the OP No.1, specially when the complainant has never approached to avail the services of OP No.1, qua the vehicle in question. Moreover from the day of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 27.11.2018 the complainant has never brought the vehicle before the OP No.1 for the purpose of its repair or due maintenance service till date. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Commission, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is barred by her own acts and conduct and latches from filing the present complaint. The vehicle in question has never been got serviced from the authorized dealer by the complainant nor it was ever got services by the complainant from the OP No.1 as required by the company. It is further averred that the OP is always ready and willing to provide its best and proper services to the complainant, if she brought the vehicle in question for its service and repair to the opposite party as per the usual terms and conditions of the company. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted, 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.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

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

5.                The counsel for the OP No.1 withdrawn his Power of Attorney on behalf of the OP No.1, vide his separate statement as he has no instructions on behalf of the OP No.1

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                In nutshell the case of the complainant is that she purchased TVS Jupiter (BS IV) bearing registration No.PB 08 EE 9703 from OP No.1 on 27.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.53,900/- with one year warranty, which is evident from Ex.C-7. After one month of the purchase, the vehicle gave problem in race as after the speed of 55-60 km its engine automatically turns off and there was a problem in the breaks and also there was a problem in meter as the petrol tank show empty despite having petrol. The complainant complained the said problems to the OP No.1, but the OP No.1 failed to resolve the same. Thereafter, the complainant went to other authorized service station/OP No.2 and got the vehicle repaired, but the problem was not resolved. The complainant had written complaints to the OP vide email dated 28.06.2019 Ex.C-2, but all in vain and then again on 03.07.2019 the complainant sent an email Ex.C-3 to the customer care of OP No.2, but again no action has been taken by the OPs to rectify the defect in the vehicle. Request has been made to allow the complaint.

8.                The contention of the OP No.1 is that from the day of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 27.11.2018 the complainant has never brought the vehicle before the OP No.1 for repair or due maintenance service, but from Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, it is clear that the complainant got service of her vehicle, but in these documents no fact has been mentioned regarding defect in the vehicle nor there is any expert opinion proved on the record by either of the party regarding any manufacturing defect or any other defect. On the other hand, the OP No.2 did not appear to contest the case. However, the vehicle is under warranty period, so she is entitled for the repair of the vehicle free of cost and as such, the complainant is entitled for relief qua OP No.2.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed qua OP No.1 and partly allowed qua OP No.2 and the OP No.2 is directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant free of cost within 20 days from the receipt of the copy of order. Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance i.e. compensation including litigation expenses 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     

18.04.2023         Member                          Member           President