Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/148

Satish Satija - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sandhu Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

L.C.Bector Adv.

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:148 dated 13.03.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 27.03.2023.

 

Satish Satija son of Sh. Naranjan Dass Satija, R/o.85/7, Bullepur Road, New City, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.      

..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Sandhu Auto Mobiles, G.T. Road, Village Kauri (Khanna), Distt. Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
2. Maruti Suzuki Udyog Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Basant Kunj, New Delhi-110070n through its General Manager.                                                                                                                .….Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate. 

For OP1                         :         Sh. Vikram Monga, Advocate. (Evidence                                                  already closed vide order dated 25.11.2022)

For OP2                         :         Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22.05.2018, the complainant purchased one Maruti Swift car from opposite party No.1 for gifting to his daughter at Chandigarh. The complainant gave total amount along with one old car in exchange offer and took the delivery of the car on 23.05.2018 and handed over the same to his daughter. On 23.05.2018, when daughter of the complainant started the car for her job but the same was not started and she contacted the dealer of opposite parties at Mohali M/sl. Stan Autos who checked the car and told that now there will be no trouble in the car but again the car stopped on the road suddenly. Daughter of the complainant tried to start the car but in vain and she hired a taxi and completed her job. The complainant sent his old car to his daughter from Mandi Gobindgarh and also sent complaints to opposite party No.1 and 2 through emails. The complainant further submitted that he personally visited opposite party No.1 but no satisfactory service was afforded and he lodged complaint to opposite party No.2 but in vain. Opposite party No.1 sold defected car to the complainant which harassed him and his daughter. The complainant send the car to opposite party No.1 and purchased Brreeza car from opposite party No.1 upon which the complainant spent Rs.48,000/- as road tax and RC charges and also suffered loss of business by spending Rs.50,000/- for hiring taxi and also suffered loss of Rs.10,000/- in replacing the insurance policy of old car and purchasing the policy for new car. On contact, opposite party No.1 told that opposite party No.2 has sent defective car to them. The complainant sent a registered notice dated 08.09.2018 to the opposite parties through his counsel Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate with request to pay Rs.2,50,000/- for the loss suffered by the complainant but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant  has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,50,000/- on account of mental torture and agony caused by them along with interest @12% per annum.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed  written statement took preliminary objections by assailing the complaint on the ground maintainability of the complaint; lack of locus standi to file the present complaint; bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties and concealment of facts. Opposite party No.1 alleged that on 22.05.2018 the complainant purchased Swift automatic gear shift from it and the car was delivered to the complainant after completion of satisfaction test driver and after proper quality. The complainant has raised the issue of breakdown with opposite party No.1 upon which the best possible service was provided to the complainant free of cost as per the highest customer satisfaction standards. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the Swift car was exchanged without any loss and deduction and on the asking, request and interest of the complainant the deal of new Breeza car was done and with his own sweet will the complainant purchased the car. Opposite party No.1 further alleged that the complainant has admitted through communications that opposite party No.1 had been helping him and never stood guilty for any acts or conduct on its behalf towards the complainant.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 reiterated the crux mentioned in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.1 alleged that the complainant has concocted a false story after deliberations and there is admission on his part that opposite party No.1has always been rendering satisfactory services. Opposite party No.1 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                Opposite party No.2 filed separate written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, the complainant is not consumer of opposite party and lack of cause of action. Opposite party No.2 alleged that the vehicle Maruti Swift car was purchased by the complainant on 22.05.2018 but was returned by him immediately after few days and in turn the complainant purchased another vehicle namely Maruti Breeza. While returning the Maruti Swift car, the complainant duly recognized the customer friendly approach of opposite party No.1 and a satisfaction email dated 04.07.2018 was sent to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 further alleged that when the complainant raised technical problems relating to start of the car just after its purchase, immediately the vehicle was inspected and all possible steps were taken by opposite party No.1 to rectify the technical faults for which the complainant was never charged any amount and thus, no financial loss was ever caused to the complainant.  There is no element of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2. The complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story to obtain undue gains. Opposite party No.2 also alleged that it is an independent entity having its own MOA and carry out business on their own invoice & sale certificate. Opposite party No.2 does not sell its products to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate. Opposite party No.2 sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between it and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties. As per clause 5 of the dealership agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. Therefore, the complainant entered into an independent contract with opposite party No.1 in so far relating the alleged transaction of sale is concerned to which opposite party No.2 was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. The vehicle in question was FCOK and PDI certified free from any defects at the time of sale. Opposite party No.2 further alleged that neither any assurances were given by it to the complainant nor any communication took place between it and the complainant at the time of sale.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux mentioned in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 alleged that the complainant is not  a consumer. Opposite party No.2 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. PA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. A1 is the copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule w.e.f. 22.05.2018 to 21.05.2019 Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 are the copies of emails, Ex. A4 is the legal notice dated 08.09.2018, Ex. A5 and Ex. A6 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                Opposite party No.1 did not conclude its evidence despite grant of sufficient chances including last chances for 4 times and as such, evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 25.11.2022.

                   The counsel for opposite party No. 2 tendered affidavit Ex. R2/A of Sh. Lokesh Pandey, Dy. General Manager (Legal) of opposite party No.2 as well as affidavit Ex. R2/B of Sh. Pankaj Bawa, employee of opposite party No.2

along with documents Ex. R2/1  is the copy of email, Ex. R2/2 is the copy of warranty policy, Ex. R2/3 is the dealer ship agreement, Ex. R2/C is also the dealer ship agreement, Ex. R2/D is the copy of email, Ex. R2/E is also the copy of warranty policy and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by the parties.  

7.                Undisputably, the complainant had purchased a Swift Dezire car which developed snag. Thereafter, the car was brought back to opposite party No.1 and again as per desire and wishes of the complainant, the complainant was provided with new vehicle make Breeza SUV after paying the price difference of the new car and difference of amount of insurance. The only grievance of the complainant is that he had to suffer mental agony due to defect in the Swift Dezire car regarding which the complainant has relied upon series of emails from Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 where he raised his grievance with the opposite parties.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 has pointed out that the complainant sent an email Ex. R2/D to opposite party No.2, the operative part of same is reproduced as under:-

“Sandhu Automobiles helped me during these three days & finally they brought back the vehicle to their showroom. As there was a technical fault in that Swift-vdi-Auto Gear Shift car, Sandhu Automobiles changed my car to new Breeza-Vdi-manual car. Now, please remove the complaint against Sandu automobiles, Khanna as they wre never involved & were rather a helping hand in my trouble time. I do not have any issue against Sandhu Automobiles, Khanna.”

It is clear that the complainant has extended that he has no grievance against the dealer. The opposite parties have acted promptly in redressing the grievance of the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by any cogent and convincing evidence.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Satish Satija Vs M/s. Sandhu Automobiles                                       CC/19/148

Present:       Sh. L.C. Bector, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vikram Monga, Advocate for OP1. (Evidence already closed              vide order dated 25.11.2022).

                   Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Sh. Vikram Monga, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of opposite party No.1.

                    Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:27.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.