Punjab

Moga

CC/16/81

Sanjeev Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pankaj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amit Kumar

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 81 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 28.03.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 20.09.2017

 

Sanjeev Verma, aged about 53 years son of Sh. Hans Raj, resident of H.No.245, Gali no.2, Vedant Nagar, Moga, District Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       M/s Pankaj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office: Bazar Ram Sukh Dass, Raja Ram Kalia Street, Ferozepur City.

 

2.       M/s Pankaj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. G. T. Road, Moga, through its Director Rajat Bansal.

 

3.       M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Corporate Office: L 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

 

4.       Kenichi Ayukawa, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Rajnish Kumar Goyal, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos.1 & 2.

                   Sh. Sunil Jaiswal, Advocate Cl. for opposite party nos.3 & 4.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against M/s Pankaj Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office: Bazar Ram Sukh Dass, Raja Ram Kalia Street, Ferozepur City and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace the car make Maruti Suzuki Celerio bearing registration no.PB29R-0057, having engine no.1003011, Chassis no. MA3FTAH1S00213544 or to refund the payment made by complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a brand new Maruti Suzuki Celerio VDI Model bearing registration no. PB-29R-0057 having engine no.1003011, Chassis no. MA3FTAH1S00213544 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5,24,603/- and the payment was made through cheque no.231635 dated 10.11.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Moga. However actual ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.5,13,800/-. At the time of sale of car opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that the car is perfectly alright and is as per norms and specifications of the company. At the time of sale of car has also taken a sum of Rs.62,000/- on account of insurance, temporary number plates and registration charges and accessories from the complainant. The officials of opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that the invoice etc will be issued to him within 2/3 days. However, inspite of repeated requests and demands by the complainant, the opposite party no.1 had failed to hand over the requisite papers to the complainant. The representatives of the opposite party no.1 had told the complainant that the invoice and other requisite papers required for getting the registration certificate from DTO Office, Moga will be deposited by them alongwith registration fees. The opposite party no.1 received a sum of Rs.42,000/- on account of registration charges, but as per information of the complainant only Rs.37,000/- were deposited by the opposite party no.1 to DTO Office, Moga. The opposite party no.1 has deceived the complainant by using unfair means by doing unfair trade practice. On 15.11.2015, when the complainant was getting his car wash, then he noticed some bubbles on the body of car and it was astonished to see that bubbles of the body of the car. To clear the doubts about the genuineness of the car the complainant on very next day got the car inspected from Shri Hemkunt Motors, which is a registered and authorized service centre of the Hyundai. The experts of the above said agency told the complainant that the car is not brand new rather its body has been repainted and the experts of the agency told the complainant that the front bumper, right hand rear door, rear bumper, back door and top roof are repainted. On the intervening night of 25/26.06.2015 a fire broke out in the showroom of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 at Moga, in which seven brand new cars parked in the showroom caught fire. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 lodged the DDR no.33 dated 26.06.2015 in Police Station City Moga-I, regarding the occurrence. The car sold to the complainant is one of the car which were parked in the showroom when the fire broke out. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 after repainting the car sold out the same to complainant by keeping the complainant in dark and cheated the complainant by selling the defective car. The matter is not over here, the documents which have been issued to the complainant by opposite party no.1, the manufacturing date has been described as October, 2015, but as per coding of Engine and Chassis number of the car the manufacturing date is June, 2015. Due to the above said reason the opposite party no.1 has not issued the invoice and other relevant documents at the time of delivery of the car. To redress his grievances the complainant number of times visited the showroom of opposite party no.1, but they failed to redress the grievances of the complainant rather they did not bother the grievances of the complainant. The complainant sent e-mails to the company, but even the company failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The complainant also served a notice dated 10.02.2016 to opposite parties, describing his grievances. The said notice was duly replied by opposite party nos.1 & 2. Due to the aforesaid illegal acts and unfair trade practices of the opposite parties the complainant had suffered a great loss, mental tension, agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties nos.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed only to harass the opposite party nos.1 & 2 with an oblique motive; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the complaint as filed is not maintainable against the opposite party nos.1 & 2. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 are not properly sued. On merits, it is admitted correct to the extent that the complainant purchased the said car from opposite party nos.1 & 2 through his son Siddhant Verma. It is correct that son of the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.5,24,603/- in favour of opposite party nos.1 & 2. Actually this cheque was issued from the account of Siddhant Verma son of the complainant and the vehicle was also taken by Siddhant Verma from opposite party nos.1 & 2. It is wrong that actual ex-showroom price of the car was Rs.5,13,800/- as alleged. The complainant never came to the dealership of opposite party no.1 for taking the delivery of the car. It was only the son of the complainant who finalized the deal with opposite party nos.1 & 2 and gave cheque and cash and took the delivery of the car. The complainant has no personal knowledge in this regard. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 sold new car to the son of the complainant in the name of the complainant and with correct price. The delivery of the car was taken by the son of the complainant under his signatures where he certified that "I have thoroughly inspected & tested the car & is free of any defect and is to my entire satisfaction". So, the complainant cannot complaint that delivery is not given properly as his son have taken the delivery after inspecting the car and after thoroughly satisfied. The car given was as per the specification of the company. It is wrong that opposite party nos.1 & 2 ever charged Rs.62,000/- in cash as registration charges, insurance charges, temporary number and accessories. The amount of fancy number has been deposited by the complainant and not by the opposite party nos.1 & 2. Since that amount for fancy number has been deposited directly by the complainant after taking all the documents for registration by his son from the opposite party nos.1 & 2 for deposit the same in DTO Office. The true facts are that the car was purchased by the son of the complainant in the name of complainant and he paid the above said cheque. The deal was finalized by Sh. Siddhant Verma with opposite party nos.1 & 2. He took the deliver of the car from opposite party nos.1 & 2 and he signed the delivery challan. The amount of road tax was paid by opposite party nos.1 & 2 on receipt of the said amount from the son of the complainant. The son of the complainant insisted opposite party nos.1 & 2 that he wants to get special number from DTO Office, Moga and as such he taken back all the original documents i.e. invoice, Form no.21, Form no.22, original policy of insurance, Road tax receipts etc. The complete documents were handed over to him and he signed the undertaking in this regard. When the son of the complainant taken all the documents from opposite party nos.1 & 2, this included invoice also. Without invoice RC is not issued by DTO office. The complainant had taken the copy of the invoice from the DTO office, which the complainant has deposited in the DTO office. It is wrong that on 15.11.2015 the complainant allegedly noticed that some bubbles on the body of the car. This fact was never brought in the knowledge of opposite party nos.1 & 2 by the complainant till the issuance of the notice. The complainant also never came to the dealership/workshop of opposite party nos.1 & 2 for even free service of the car or for any such alleged complaint, which itself create a doubt on the part of complainant. Had the complainant came about the alleged doubt on 16.11.2015, the complainant immediately contacted opposite party nos.1 & 2. The house and shop of the complainant is situated at a distance of only one kilometre from the agency of opposite party nos.1 & 2, but the complainant never bothered to inform to opposite party nos.1 & 2 in this regard. The complainant with an oblique motive got the service from Sawan Motors, Moga which is at a distance of about 3 to 4 kolometer from his house. Non-informing about the alleged defect to opposite party nos.1 & 2 for a period of 3 months from the date of knowledge itself proves that the complainant is hiding something. Had it was actually been happened the complainant would have came to the dealership/workshop of opposite party nos.1 & 2 to show the alleged complaint, but the complainant did not came for the reason best know to him. It is wrong that on 16.11.2015 in order to clear his alleged doubt about the geuinity of the car, the complainant got the car inspected from the alleged Shri Hemkunt Motors. It is also wrong that Shri Hemkunt Motors is an authorized service centre of Hyundai. This is all a made-up story only to create false evidence. It is wrong that the car which the complainant had purchased is not a brand new car or that is body was repainted. It is wrong that alleged defects were finds out by the alleged experts. A false certificate has been got prepared in connivance with the alleged expert. It is wrong that the same defect was confirmed by some authorized service center of MSIL. No normal person will keep mum after knowing the alleged defect and will came to the dealership/workshop from where he purchased the car and will make a complaint in this regard. It seems that car of the complainant met with an accident and the complainant or his son got the same repainted from some where and kept silent for some time and now after a gap of 3/4 months the complainant had issued the said notice on wrong facts. The car was brand new and was not repainted at the time of delivery taken by the son of the complainant from the dealership of opposite party nos.1 & 2. It seems that at the time of filling the performa for RC of car, the month of manufacturing may be typed as October, 2015 instead of June 2015 due to typographical mistake. However manufacturing year is the same and this mistake of month has not effect to the said car. The warranty of the car start from the date of the sale of the car and not from the month or year of manufacturing. Since the complainant never came to the dealership/workshop of opposite party nos.1 & 2 after taking the delivery of the car by the son of the complainant and never made any complaint in this regard till the delivery of the notice, the question of redressal of grievances does not arise. The complainant intentionally did not visit the dealership of opposite party nos.1 & 2 for the alleged complaint till date for the reason best know to him. This seems that the complainant is hiding something with an oblique motive. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special cost has been made.

4.                Opposite party nos.3 & 4 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant did not enter into any contract for sale or hire any service of consideration with opposite party nos.3 & 4. The complainant has not paid any amount towards the price of vehicle in question to opposite party nos.3 & 4. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party nos.3 & 4. Hence the complainant is not a consumer in so far sale of vehicle in question is concerned; that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. The complainant has failed to set out any specific allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against answering opposite parties. The name of the answering opposite parties are liable to be deleted from the array of parties; that the present complaint is not maintainable against answering opposite parties. The opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does/did not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it directly to any individual customer. The answering opposite parties sells/invoices the vehicle to its dealers under the Dealership Agreement. Answering opposite parties are not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of dealer(opposite party nos.1 & 2) as the transaction of sale is independent between opposite party no.1 and its customer and the answering opposite parties are not privity of sale transaction. The relationship between the opposite party no.3 and its dealers including opposite party no.1 is governed by the provision of Dealership Agreement executed between them and is based on Principal-to-Principal as is evident from the clause 5 of said Agreement; that the complainant has not disclosed in what manner his allegation is covered by the term 'complaint' as referred to in Section 2 (1) (C) of the Act; that the present complaint is not maintainable as the answering opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service or involved in unfair trade practice as defined under the Act. In the instant case, the complainant alleged that opposite party no.1 has delivered June 2015 Model as October 2015 model and sought replacement/refund of the price of vehicle with compensation, interest and litigation expenses. The present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties.

          On merits, it is submitted that complainant has no case against opposite party nos.3 & 4 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint against opposite party nos.3 & 4. It is submitted that complainant has admittedly purchased the vehicle in question under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti Celerio VDI) and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled the terms and condition with opposite party no.1. The complainant has neither paid any amount to opposite party nos.3 & 4 towards the price of vehicle in question nor the answering opposite parties sold/delivered vehicle in question to the complainant. The entire sale transactions have taken place between the complainant and opposite party no.1 in regard to sale/purchase of vehicle in question, to which the opposite party nos.3 & 4 are not privity. Further submitted that in the instant case, the opposite party no.3 sold the vehicle in question to opposite party no.1 who has sold the same to complainant under its invoice and sale certificates. The terms and conditions of sale of vehicle were amicably and expressly settled between the complainant and opposite party no.1. Opposite party nos.3 & 4 have not received any amount from the complainant. The opposite party nos.3 & 4 have not received any amount towards the registration of vehicle with regional transport authority. The complainant has not made an allegation against the opposite party nos.3 & 4. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claims against opposite party nos.3 & 4. The complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by filing a false and concocted complaint. On perusal of the vehicle history, it is stated that the complainant has brought the vehicle in question to the workshop of M/s S.M. Auto Care Centre, Moga on 30.01.2016 for availing 1^st free inspection service which was carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant brought the vehicle in question to the said workshop for obtaining accidental repairs (denting) which were carried to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant also brought his vehicle to the said workshop on 21.04.2016 at 970 kms for running repairs and again on 6.5.2016 for 2^nd free inspection service which were carried out by said workshop which has not been made a party. The complainant has expressed his full satisfaction during post service follow up and collected the vehicle from the said workshop without any protest and demur. The complainant has not pointed out the alleged bubbles on the body of the vehicle during the said services. The complainant be directed to implead the said workshop which is urgent and necessary for proper adjudication of the present complaint. It is stated that the alleged Hemkunt Motors is not a competent authority to inspect the vehicle in question under the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the vehicle in question was declared Final Check OK by opposite party no.3 on 20.06.2015 and despatched a brand new vehicle to opposite party no.1 on  22.06.2015. The rights, title and ownership of the vehicles are transferred to the dealers as and when the vehicle are handed over to the transporters for dispatch to dealer destination. It is further stated that the alleged manufacturing month of June and October of the same year does not have any impact on the model of vehicle. The vehicle in question is 2015 Model. Without prejudice, the vehicle in question is stated to be 2015 Model in form no.21 (sale certificates) issued by opposite party no.1. As is evident from the documents received from opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.1 has clarified the same in its detailed reply to legal notice. The complainant has dragged the answering opposite parties into ligation to cause unlawful loss. The complainant has no locus standi having no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering opposite parties. The complainant has failed a vexatious complaint based on surmises and conjecture to harass the opposite party nos.3 & 4 and to obtain undue gains. That the complaint is devoid of any merit; that there is no cause of action between the complainant and answering opposite parties; that the complainant has not suffered due to any act of omission or commission on the part of answering opposite parties; that there is no cause of action in favour of complainant and against the answering opposite parties; that the complainant is not entitled to seek replacement, interest, compensation and litigation expenses as alleged from opposite party nos.3 & 4; that the complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint against answering opposite parties; that the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for under the Act against answering opposite parties; that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.C-1, affidavit of Sh. Sidharth Sharma as Ex.C-2 and copies of documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12 and affidavit of Sh.Avdesh Kumar, Senior Painter, Sri Hemkunt Motors as Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence. 

6.                On the other hand, opposite party nos.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajat Bansal, Director of Pankaj Automobiles Ex.OP-1, 2/1, additional affidavit of Sh.Rajat Bansal, Director of Pankaj Automobiles as Ex.OP-1, 2/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1, 2/3 to Ex.OP-1, 2/21 and closed the evidence. Whereas, opposite party nos.3 & 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashish Chauhan as Ex.OP-3 & 4/1 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                The case of the complainant is that on 10.11.2015, he purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Celerio car from opposite party nos.1 & 2, which was manufactured by opposite party nos.3 & 4. He made entire payment regarding the price of the car, insurance charges, RC charges and other charges to opposite party nos.1 & 2, but the opposite parties did not hand over the invoice and other documents regarding the vehicle at the time of delivery. On 15.11.2015, when the complainant was washing his car, he noticed some bubbles on the body of the car and shocked to see it and to clear his doubt about the genuineness of the car, he visited to Sri Hemkunt Motors on the next day for inspection, which is a authorized service station of Hyundai Motors. The experts of the said agency told the complainant that the car is not a brand new, rather its body is repainted and experts of the agency told to the complainant that the front bumper, right hand rear door, rear bumper, back door and top roof are repainted and they issued certificate dated 16.11.2015 to this effect. The actual facts are that on the intervening night of 25/26.06.2015 a fire broke out in the showroom of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 in which seven brand new cars parked in the showroom caught fire. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 lodged DDR regarding it with the police station, Moga, copy of the same is Ex.C-3. The car in question sold to the complainant is one out of those cars, which were damaged in the fire and opposite party nos.1 & 2 after repainting the car sold it to complainant by keeping the complainant in dark and cheated him by selling the defective car. The complainant visited to opposite parties a number of times for the redressal of his grievances, but they failed to redress the grievances of complainant, even the complainant sent e-mail to opposite party nos.3 & 4, but they also failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. He also served a notice dated 10.02.2016 to opposite parties. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 duly gave reply to the notice, but failed to redress the grievances of the complainant, copy of the same is Ex.C-6 and its reply Ex.C-11. All these acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, who caused a great loss, mental tension, agony and harassment and monetary loss to the complainant.

9.                 On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant has filed this false, frivolous and baseless complaint only to harass the opposite parties with an intention to get undue monetary benefits. He concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. They admitted that the complainant purchased the car in question from opposite party nos.1 & 2 through his son Siddhant Verma. They admitted that son of the complainant gave a cheque amounting to Rs.5,24,603/- out of the price of the car from the account of son of the complainant. They argued that delivery of the vehicle was also taken by Siddhant Verma on behalf of the complainant. The opposite parties sold a brand new car to complainant in perfect condition as per norms and specifications of the company. Before taking the delivery of the car, the son of the complainant thoroughly inspecting and satisfying that the car is free from any defect, he took delivery of the car on behalf of the complainant. It is wrong that opposite parties  have not delivered the document of the car to the son of the complainant on time, rather as per Government norms RC of new vehicle have to be applied through the agency and registration fee is also to be deposited through agency with DTO. All the documents and certificates including invoice in original have to be submitted with registering authority. The complainant wants to take some fancy number for which he had to deposit charges directly with DTO and only due to this reason RC of the vehicle in question did not apply on the very day. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, the complainant had not paid entire price of the car including insurance charges, registration charges when he paid the balance amount then on that very day i.e. on 01.12.2015 the registration fee was deposited with DTO and applied for the RC. It is wrong that body of the car was repainted  and there was any defect in the paint of the car. It is wrong that on 15.11.2015, the complainant noticed bubbles on the body of the car. The complainant never brought this fact to the knowledge of opposite party nos.1 & 2. He never came to the dealership and workshop of the opposite parties with the complaint of alleged defect of repainting. It is wrong that he visited to Sri Hemkunt Motors for investigation of his vehicle who gave certificate regarding the repainting of vehicle on 16.11.2015. It is wrong that Sri Hemkunt Motors is the authorized Service Centre of Hyundai Motors. The abovesaid service station is not authorized to give such types of certificates. The alleged certificate is forged, fabricated and ante-dated document prepared by the complainant in connivance with said Hemkunt Motors. From the very face of this document it is clear that it is fabricated and ante-dated document, copy of this certificate is Ex.C-9. From the perusal of this certificate, it is transpired that in this certificate for the identification of the vehicle engine number, chassis number and registration number of the vehicle PB-29R-0057 is also written. This certificate bears dated as 16.11.2015, whereas on 16.11.2015 this registration number does not exist, even the registration of the vehicle in question was applied on 01.12.2015 and fee regarding the registration was also deposited on 01.12.2015. The registration certificate was prepared by DTO office on 21.12.2015 i.e. about more than the month after 16.11.2015 i.e. from the issuance of alleged certificate. Then how the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned on the certificate which was not in existence on that day. The receipts regarding the payment of registration number with DTO are Ex.OP-1,2/10 to OP-1,2/12, which proves that registration of the vehicle was applied on 01.12.2015 and payment was also made on 01.12.2015. Opposite parties further submitted that a letter was issued by DTO, Moga regarding the information sought by opposite party nos.1 & 2 under RTI from the office of DTO. In this letter DTO cleared that registration of the vehicle in question was applied on 01.12.2015 and RC was prepared on 21.12.2015 and copy of the RC was delivered to complainant after 21.12.2015, then how he got mentioned the registration number on the alleged certificate on 16.11.2015. Further to prove the genuineness of this certificate complainant examined one Sh.Sidharth Sharma, Partner of Sri Hemkunt Motors, who admitted that their service station is not authorized service station of Hyundai Motors and other car companies. He admitted that they maintained job card regarding the vehicle, which came to them for repair or inspection, but he failed to produce the job card regarding the car in question dated 16.11.2015. He even failed to produce any document regarding the issuance of certificate Ex.C-9. He stated that he mentioned registration number of the vehicle after inspection of registration certificate. He further stated that he did not inspect the vehicle himself rather it was inspected by their expert Painter namely Avdesh Kumar and he issued the certificate as per the report of said Avdesh Kumar. The complainant produced said Avdesh Kumar in the Forum and filed his affidavit as Ex.C-13 stating that he is Senior Painter at Sri. Hemkunt Motors and is having vast experience. On 16.11.2015 the car in question was examined by him and he found defects in paint of the car and on the basis of his examination the said certificate dated 16.11.2015 was issued and said certificate was prepared in his presence. In his cross examination by counsel for opposite party nos.1 & 2 he stated that he never taken any training from any institution either Government or Semi Government for denting and painting. He never took any training from ITI or any other institution. He did not know whether Sri Hemkunt Motors is Authorized Service Centre of Hyundai Motors or Hemkunt Motors is having spare parts of Hyundai cars. Further he failed to tell about the material to be mixed in the paint. He did not know regarding the contents of paint. He failed to told that how many layers of the paint is to be applied to the car, thickness of each layer, temperature required at the time of painting. He admitted that he checked the car only once on 16.11.2015 and after that he never inspected the vehicle in question. He stated that registration number of the car was written on the certificate on his instructions.

10.              Ld. counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the complainant failed to produce any job card, gate pass etc. to prove that he visited to Sri Hemkunt Motors on 16.11.2015. The alleged certificate dated 16.11.2015 Ex.C-9 is false, fabricated and ante-dated document prepared by complainant in connivance with Sri Hemkunt Motors. The complainant never approached to opposite parties regarding the defect of vehicle. If for the sake of argument, it is presumed that complainant approached to opposite party nos.1 & 2 they refused to listen his complaint then there is another Authorized Service Station of Maruti Suzuki stands in Moga city, he can approach to that service station with his complaint or to the company directly, but he did not approach any of these. Moreover there are service stations and dealership of other car companies also in the Moga city, the complainant can easily approach those service stations for examination of his car, but he did not approach to any Authorized Service Station with the complaint regarding the defect in the paint of his car. Ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant produced on file document Ex.C-12, which is printout of whatsapp chat between Siddhant Verma son of the complainant and Sushant cousin of Rajat Bansal, Managing Director of opposite party nos.1 & 2 with whom reference he purchased the car in question from opposite party nos.1  & 2. Vide this document on 08.11.2015 Siddhant Verma made enquiry from Sushant regarding the availability of car and purchased the car from opposite parties. Even he did not inform to said Sushant regarding the defect in the vehicle, which was allegedly came to his knowledge on 15.11.2015 rather on 01.12.2015 he made request to said Sushant for some discount for the remaining payment. This printout of whatsapp chat is uptill 04.01.2016. The complainant never made any complaint regarding the alleged defect in the vehicle with Sushant with whom reference he purchased the said car, even after coming into the knowledge regarding the fault in the paint of the car on 15.11.2015. The complainant never made any complaint regarding the said defect to the company i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. He sent e-mail to the company on the first time on 14.12.2015 with main complaint that he do not get papers of his car and in this e-mail he simply made reference that roof of the car is not smooth. I think it was repainted, copy of the said e-mail is Ex.C-10. This e-mail is dated 14.12.2015, however as per the complainant the fact regarding the fault in the paint came into his knowledge on 15.11.2015 and he got examined his car from Sh.Hemkunt Motors on 16.11.2015, who gave him certificate that both the bumpers, fright hand rear door, rear bumper, back door and top roof are repainted, then why he keep mum and did not brought this fact to the knowledge of company even after passing of one month. He only mentioned that roof of the car is not smooth and did not disclose his entire story. This also proves that story of the complainant is false and prepared afterwards to get undue benefits from the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant got periodically services and other routine services and repairs from the S.M. Autocare Centre, Moga which is other Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Suzuki in Moga City, he first time visited with the said service centre on 30.01.2016 for first free service and after it he regularly visited the said service centre for services of his vehicle, but he never complained about the alleged defect in paint to that service centre. Opposite parties produced service history of the vehicle as Ex.OP-1,2/14 to OP-1,2/20. The complainant is using his vehicle regularly. The complainant even did not produce any document or evidence that if there is any fault in paint, whether he got it repaired from somewhere or not? Only by saying that in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2015 a fire broke out in the showroom of opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and seven brand new cars parked in the showroom caught fire and damaged in that fire and alleged that car in question is out of those cars, which was delivered by the opposite parties to complainant after repainting is not sufficient to prove his allegation.

11.              On it, ld. counsel for complainant submitted that the opposite parties have not produced the details of those vehicles, which were damaged in the said fire, this submission did not support the allegations of the complainant. It is settled law that the parties have to stands on their own legs and proves his allegations by any cogent evidence. No one can take the benefits of the weakness of other parties. One should prove his case at his own. From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is failed to prove his allegation that there are defects in the vehicle in question and it was repainted. The certificate dated 16.11.2015 Ex.C-9 is not proved to genuine rather it seems to be a forged, fabricated and ante-dated document. The entire story made by the complainant is seems to be afterthought to fetch money from the opposite parties. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.

12.              Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated 20.09.2017

 

                             (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                 Member                         Member                    President