Haryana

Ambala

CC/139/2012

BAJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PASCO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SANJIV KUMAR YADAV

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 139 of 2012

                                                                       Date of Institution         : 02.05.2012

                                                                       Date of decision             : 10.03.2017

          Bajinder Singh son of Sh. Chuhar Singh R/o VPO Badhauli, Tehsil          Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

1. M/s PASCO Motors, sales service spares, NH-73, Ambala-Jagadhari road, Opp Gurudwara, Dosarka, Distt. Ambala, through its manager/Authorized signature.
2. TATA Motors Private Ltd. through its manager/Authorized Signature, located at India Bulls, Centre 814, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai 400013.

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Lakhvinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. P.K. Goel, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   Sh. Sushil Gakhar, counsel for OP No. 2.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-37-C 6915, model maic, on 17.08.2011 from the OP No. 1 who is the authorized dealer of OP No. 2 and the complainant is sole owner of above said vehicle and using the above said vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. After purchasing the vehicle i.e. about seven days, the vehicle started giving troubles in its start and in smooth running from one place to another and the complainant reported the matter to the Op  and the complainant took the vehicle to the agency where the vehicle of the complainant was repaired temporarily but they did not disclosed the defect of the vehicle to the complainant. After 15 days, again the vehicle started giving problem and again complainant approached the OP No. 1. OP No. 1 told the complainant that there is a battery problem and the same will be changed. On 24.11.2011, there was a same problem in the battery and the vehicle was not starting and when the complainant approached the OP No. 1 and after checking of the vehicle, OP No. 1 told that due to non changing the battery, the engine of the said vehicle is giving all these problems and if this time the battery is not change, the total engine shall become defective. Further submitted that the complainant told the OPs to put the new battery in his vehicle to avoid any further damage to his vehicle, but both the addressee did not care for the vehicle of the complainant, rather told him that the battery is ok and in case there is any problem in this battery, they shall be responsible for the damages caused to the vehicle of the complainant. The Op No. 1 charges a sum of Rs. 750/- as repair charges. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of spelling the vehicle to the complainant, got the vehicle insured and charged a sum of Rs. 29,000/- from the complainant but paid the less amount to the insurance Co.  They also took a sum of Rs. 3600/- from the complainant as file charges and also took another sum of Rs. 3600/- for other misc. expenses from the complainant. Further submitted that the complainant has been requesting the OP to do the needful in his vehicle, but they are putting complainant off on one pretext or the other and have failed to remove the defect from the vehicle. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has availed the second free service from OP No. 1 on 14.12.2011 and the complainant has got checked the same from OP No. 1 again on 26.12.2011 and the vehicle was received by the complainant in good condition and to his entire satisfaction and he also signed the said document in this regard on both occasion dated 14.12.2011 and 26.12.2011 after going through the contents of same which also proves that there is no defect in vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that the battery is replaced only by the manufacturer company “TATA Green” and complainant has intentionally not impleaded the said company or ITS authorized dealer Heera sale authorized dealer of TATA Green, at Ambala Chandigarh Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City as a party in complaint as under warranty, only the manufacturer company can replace the same and not the dealer on the terms and conditions of warranty.  Further submitted that the complainant has violated terms and conditions of warranty and got repaired the vehicle by installing the battery from outside instead of authorized dealer and thus has lost his right to avail the services of company.

                   On the other hand OP No. 2 also filed written statement and submitting that before purchasing the vehicle in question, the complainant had taken a test drive of the vehicle and had understood in detail the warranties, assurances and specifications of the vehicle and after being fully satisfied with the performance, functions, specifications and terms and conditions of after-sales service of the car, he purchased it. Further submitted that the complainant were attended diligently and to the best of their expertise by the service Station of OP No. 1 and had all the efforts at their end to satisfy the complainant and all the defects were removed to the full satisfaction of the complainant. In fact, the complainant has given a satisfaction note stating that he is satisfied with the job done by the service Centre.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-12 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No. 1 has also tendered affidavits as Annexure RW1-A alongwith with documents as Annexure R-1 and closed his evidence. Counsel for OP No. 2 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure RW2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2 and Annexure R-3 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The main graves of the complainant in this case is that there was a battery problem in the vehicle in question but OP has not change the battery inspite of the lodged the complaint on 26.12.2011 and OP told to the complainant the battery is available at Yamuna Nagar and refused to change the battery ultimately, complainant has to purchased the new battery for the said vehicle for smooth running of the vehicle himself on 08.02.2012 but after replacing the battery of the said vehicle, the vehicle still not running smoothly. To prove this version, the complainant has to place the expert opinion on the file or to file the application under Section 13 (1) (C) of C.P. Act is relevant in present case which says “Where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of  forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”. The perusal of record reveals that the job cards of various dates 26.12.2011, 08.02.2012 and 14.12.2011 Annexure C-9 to C-11 from which it reveals that all problems occurred as mentioned above were rectified by the Ops and the complainant signed on the above said job cards after satisfaction.  

5.                In the present case, the complainant failed to file any application under the above provision nor he filed any report of private expert to prove the vehicle in question is having any manufacture defect or not. In this way, the complainant failed to prove his case. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :10.03.2017                                                Sd/-

                                                                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                        Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member