Delhi

North East

CC/49/2019

Naushad Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s R.K. Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 49/19

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Naushad Ali S/o Sh. Madina R/o E 56/38 A, G.T Road, Village Khera, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095		Complainant
		Versus
	1.               2.         3.	M/s R.K Automobiles (Authorised Dealer Hero Motors) Plot No. 467-483, G.T Road, Opp. Dilshad Garden, Metro Station Shahdara, Delhi-110095   M/s R.K. Automobiles Plot No. 2, Main G.T Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110095   M/s R.K Automobiles Plot No. 340, Friends Colony Indl. Area, Delhi-110095		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		10.04.19 16.11.23 29.01.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a “Maestro Edge VX BSIV” model scooty no.  DL 5SBR 1429 to the tune of Rs. 61,400/- from Opposite Party No.1 on 15.05.18 and paid Rs. 21,300/- in cash and rest of the amount i.e. 41,000/- is financed by the financer i.e. M/s R.K Automobile and Hero Moto Corporation Ltd. for period of 12 months with instalment of Rs. 3,348/-. It is submitted that out of 12 instalments, 9 instalments have been paid. It is alleged that the said vehicle has lots of manufacturing defects and Opposite Party No. 1 did not properly check the vehicle, due to which the complainant suffered lots of problems in his day today life. The subject vehicle had a regular breakdown problem while plying on the road and also had lots of mechanical defect. The Complainant stated to have made complaint several times to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 gave assurance that no further problem shall be occurred but said vehicle is still not able to ply properly and also Opposite Party No.1 allegedly charged Complainant for each repairing of the said vehicle. The Complainant stated that he had made various calls to Opposite Party on various dates but no purpose has been served till date despite regular visits and making illegal payments during the free service period. The Complainant has also sent written explanation regarding problems via speed post dated 10.09.18 but all in vain. The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 20.12.18 but Opposite Party did not pay any heed to it. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to change the vehicle in question and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment with interest. He has also prayed for Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed written statement. It has been submitted that the complainant has made M/s R.K. Automobiles with its three addresses as three different parties while effectively there is only one Opposite Party. It is admitted that the subject scooty was delivered by the Opposite Party to the Complainant but it was  new registered scooty as mentioned in the retail invoice and not the old one as alleged by the Complainant. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that they have been wrongly included in the present claim as they are only the seller and the service provider of the said scooty and have no involvement and liability in a case of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle after its sale and in such case liability if any to replace or pay on that account is of manufacturer i.e. Hero Motocorp Ltd. The Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint on ground of non-joinder and misjoinder of parties as Complainant has not made the manufacturer party. The Opposite Party submits that there has been no deficiency on their part as they have resolved the issues of the Complainant many times free of cost being the authorised service provider.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

5. Despite giving several opportunities, Opposite Parties failed to file its evidence. Therefore, right of Opposite Parties to file evidence was closed vide order dated 16.08.22.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person and we have also perused the file.  
7. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased the subject scooty from Opposite Party M/s R.K Automobile and got the same financed by Opposite Party dealer M/s R.K Automobile and Hero Motocorp Ltd., the manufacturer. It is alleged that the said vehicle has lots of manufacturing defects and Opposite Party i.e. service provider did not properly check the vehicle, due to which the complainant suffered lots of problems. The subject vehicle had a regular breakdown problem while plying on the road and also had lots of mechanical defect. The grievance of the complainant is that despite several complaints to the Opposite Party, the vehicle could not be made roadworthy and Opposite Party No. 1 allegedly charged each time for the repair of the vehicle during free service period. Hence, all this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for change of the vehicle in question and as well as compensation for harassment.
8. On the other hand, Counsel on behalf of all the Opposite Parties submits that the Complainant has made M/s R.K. Automobiles with its three addresses as three different parties while effectively there is only one Opposite Party. It is admitted that the subject scooty was delivered by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant but it was  new registered scooty as mentioned in the retail invoice and not the old one as alleged by the Complainant. The case of the Opposite Party is that they have been wrongly included in the present claim as they are only the seller and the service provider of the said scooty and have no involvement and liability in a case of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle after its sale and in such case liability, if any, to replace or pay on that account is of manufacturer i.e. Hero Motocorp Ltd. The Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint on ground of non-joinder and misjoinder of parties as Complainant has not made the manufacturer party. The Opposite Party submits that there has been no deficiency on their part as they have resolved the issues of the Complainant many times free of cost being the authorised service provider.
9. It is worth to note the right of the Opposite Party to file evidence was closed and their case remained unproved by any supporting evidence.
10. The perusal of the material on record shows that the Complainant has alleged that Opposite Party i.e. service provider did not properly check the vehicle as the subject vehicle had lots of manufacturing defects/mechanical defects and just after the vehicle purchase, the Complainant suffered lots of problems. The Complainant has also alleged that Opposite Party charged each time for the repair of the vehicle during free service period and also did not resolve his issues despite many complaints. Supporting his contentions, the Complainant has relied upon the documents inter alia Vehicle service history record, job cards and receipts.  The perusal of the evidence filed by the Complainant shows that the evidence relied upon by the Complainant falls short of proving the alleged manufacturing defects as there is no cogent and adequate evidence in support of his contention. Moreover, it is evident that the Complainant has availed the free service and was charged only for items or parts which were changed at his request. The perusal of job card dated 30.07.2018 shows that it was remarked by the mechanic that there was broken wire due to rats and this fact has been acknowledged by the Complainant himself in para 5 (d) in his complaint. Hence, the defects or problems allegedly faced by the Complainant in the subject vehicle were attributable to that and Opposite Party attended to those in best possible manner as is shown in the vehicle service record and job-cards filed by the Complainant himself.
11. It is evident from the record that the Complainant had not been able to discharge its onus to prove the manufacturing defect. He neither produced any expert opinion nor could prove from the records such as the job cards that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. On careful scrutiny of the evidence produced by the Complainant, we have observed that some defects/damage appeared in the vehicle were due to wire damage by rats as admitted by the Complainant himself and in such case the Complainant cannot be allowed to say that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle entitling him replacement of vehicle.
12.  In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that since the Complainant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the manufacturing defect in the subject vehicle and has been unable to prove that Opposite Party has charged him wrongly, no case of deficiency in services is made out against the Opposite Party/ies.
13. Thus the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Order announced on 29.01.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President