Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/472/2016

Lakshmi Medical Agencies - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.R. Bansal

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/472/2016
Date of Institution	:	29/06/2016
Date of Decision	:	24/03/2017

 

Lakshmi Medical Agencies, Plot No.182-183, 2^nd Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mr. Chander Has Gupta.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., 174, Industrial Area, Phase-II, (Dealer), Chandigarh through its owner.

2.     M/s Renault India Pvt. Ltd., ASV-Ramana Towers, 4^th Floor, #37-38, Venkatanarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017, Tamilnadu India (Manufacturer) through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM	:	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
		MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
		SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. S.R. Bansal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in the month of January 2016, the complainant selected to purchase one Renault Duster car of 2015 model. The said car was delivered vide invoice dated 3.3.2016. When the complainant applied for registration of the car with RTA Chandigarh, he came to know that the car was manufactured in the month of July, 2015 instead of December, 2015. The complainant immediately sent emails on 15.4.2016. Thereafter the OPs visited the complainant and accepted that the car was manufactured in July, 2015 and told to compensate the complainant, but, they failed to do so. It has further been contended that the vehicle was having many defects viz. low average, humming and air cutting sound from tyres, vibration in the foot paddle etc. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, OP-1 has taken the preliminary objection that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant firm for commercial use. It has been averred that the complainant, after comparing the price of 2015 and 2016 vehicles, finally zeroed on a 2015 model of brand new Duster vehicle and a huge discount was offered on the same. At the time of issuing the documents, the month/year of manufacture of the said vehicle was inadvertently mentioned as December, 2015 whereas it was in fact manufactured in July, 2015.  It has been denied that the vehicle in dispute had any defect.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         OP-2, in its separate written reply, has also taken the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer as it is a commercial establishment engaged in the business of medical agency and was using the vehicle for commercial purposes. It has been averred that OP-2 had no role whatsoever in the sale of the vehicle by the dealer to the customer. The documents related to the vehicle were prepared by OP-1 in which OP-2 had no role.  It has been denied that OP-2 ever visited the complainant or promised any compensation to the complainant. It has also been denied that the vehicle in dispute was suffering from defects merely because it was allegedly manufactured in July, 2015. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         On the basis of the evidence on record, it becomes apparent that the vehicle in dispute was purchased by M/s Lakshmi Medical Agencies i.e. the complainant firm. It is not of the case of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased by it for use of some partner or any office bearer of the complainant firm. In such a situation, the complainant cannot be termed to be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Reliance in this connection can be had on M/s Regency Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. decided on 1.3.2017 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, UT, Chandigarh bearing Consumer case No.42 of 2011 wherein it was held that since the vehicle was purchased by the company which was running business and it was not pleaded in the complaint that the vehicle was purchased by it for the use of Director or office bearer of the complainant company, the complaint was not held to be maintainable because the company was doing a commercial business.
7.         The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the car in dispute suffers from any manufacturing defect or not? To support his contention, counsel for the complainant states that the car in dispute was actually manufactured in July, 2015 whereas the same was represented and sold to the complainant by alleging that it was manufactured in December, 2015. Furthermore, it is stated that the vehicle is having so many defects, being a July, 2015 model instead of December, 2015, such as low average which is around 13.5 KMPH instead of claimed average of 19.5 KMPH, humming noise and air cutting sound from the tyres, lot of vibration in the foot paddle with the car goes (going) into pothole which reflects that the vehicle is not upto the mark which is five months old and it is not possible for the complainant to accept it. For the so called defects, the complainant has not produced any job card to prove that the car had to be taken to the workshop for repairs or the alleged defects could not be rectified despite undertaking repairs. The car was purchased by the complainant firm in the year March, 2016, after all after manufacturing the cars those have to be sent to different stations and it takes time until they are sold to different customers. The grouse of the complainant that since the car was manufactured more than 6 months prior to its sale, therefore, it suffers from the alleged defects, is not at all tenable. The contention that the date of manufacture was erased or it was shown to be manufactured in December, 2015, has no legal stance. It has categorically been contended on behalf of the OP that it was inadvertently mentioned on the sale certificate (at page 13) that the car was manufactured in December, 2015 whereas actually it was manufactured in July, 2015. The contention of the complainant, that the average of the car was 13.5 KMPH whereas as per company specifications it was 19.5 KMPH, also cannot be stated to be any manufacturing defect because low average of the car depends upon many factors like the place, air pressure in tyres, quality of the road, oil and lubricants.  If the car is plied in city area, it is bound to give less average as compared to long drive in countryside.
8.         For the remaining alleged defects pointed out by the complainant, no expert evidence has been adduced on record.  The main grouse pertains to manufacturing date only and in our considered opinion, remaining alleged defects have been coined to make out a case for refund of the price of the car, which on appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, is not permissible. 
9.         Thus, it becomes amply clear that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Even the complainant is not proved to be a consumer falling under the purview of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the vehicle in dispute is proved to be a commercial vehicle in the name of the firm. The present complaint appears to have been filed without any cause of action.  As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/03/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President