Haryana

StateCommission

A/370/2014

Mahender Singh Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sterling Motors Company - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. G.C.Garg

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.370 of 2014

                                      Date of Institution:24.04.2014

                                      Date of Decision: 23.01.2017

 

Mahender Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Bhagwan Yadav R/o Village & Post Office Kasan, District Gurgaon.

                                                …Appellant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Sterling Motors Company, Sector 17-18 Road, Behind PASCO Body Shop, Sarhaul, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.      Mahindra & Mahindra  Ltd., Markeing Officer, Mahindra Towers, 3^rd Floor, Akuril Road, Kandiwali (E) Mumbai-400101 through Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3.      Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400039 through Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                                …Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. G.C.Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

None for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

    

1.                It was alleged by complainant that he purchased a vehicle make Mahindra 5000 XUV from opposite party No.1 (for short ‘OP’) on 14.04.2012 bearing registration No.HR-26-BR-8134. The vehicle was having following defects since very beginning:-

     “(i)          Heavy Engine Noise in inner part of engine/faulty  engine.

     (ii)          Front Left and right side door locking problem.

     (iii)          Noise problem in doors and Auto open in running position.

     (iv)         Engine sound inside the cabin.

     (v)          Noise in gear box.

     (vi)         Noise in chassis.

     (vii)        Loud noise in the left side front wheel.

After 2-3 days left side window of vehicle opened automatically. Due to distraction, motor cycle hit from the back side. He paid Rs.54,710/- for repair of vehicle. This vehicle was taken to workshop time and again as detailed below:-

“The vehicle remained in the workshop from 18^th April 2012 to 26^th April 2012, thereafter from 03^rd May 2012 to 06^th May 2012, from 10^th May 2012 to 11^th May 2012 and still with you from 21^st of June 2012 to 4^th August 2012”.

Since three months vehicle was in their possession but was not returned. Notice was also sent through counsel but without any result. As there was manufacturing defect since very beginning, OPs be directed to replace the same with new one or to return sale price alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 14.04.2012 alongwith penalty to the tune of Rs.5 lacs.

2.                OP No.1 filed separate reply and OP Nos.2 & 3 filed joint reply, controverting his averments. It was alleged by OP No.1 that as and when the vehicle was brought to his workshop, the same was repaired to his satisfaction. Accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of complainant or his driver. The engine of vehicle was replaced with new one and vehicle was taken by complainant on 17.12.2012 after executing satisfactory note. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by him. objections about concealment of facts, accruing cause of action, jurisdiction, locus-standi and non joinder of parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                OP Nos.2 & 3 alleged that the defect did not exist in the vehicle since very beginning. After satisfaction, he took the vehicle. Whenever minor defects were noticed, they were rectified. Even engine of the vehicle was replaced free of costs. They were  not liable to pay any compensation. Objections about accruing cause of action, concealment of facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.               After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in dispute which require not only the technical expert opinion but also cogent evidence for its replacement, if any, under warranty and parts thereof. However, OPs have promptly and efficiently rectified the problem of noise in the engine by its replacement but also caused by two accidents and thereafter there is no further complaint till date on record. Consequently, the complainant also failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant fails and stands dismissed.”

5.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.                Arguments heard. File perused.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 it is clear that vehicle was taken to workshop of OP No.1 time and again for repair because there was heavy engine noise. It remained in workshop of OP No.1 for a long time, as detailed above. There was heavy noise in the engine, door, chassis etc. when all these defects could not be removed, it clearly shows that there is manufacturing defect.

8.                This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of Ex.C-6 it is clear that the problems mentioned therein were due to accident. It is specifically mentioned  in Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 that service was done on 18.04.2012 and 29.06.2012 respectively due to accident. The vehicle was purchased on 16.04.2012 and met with an accident just after two days. Thereafter, problems started one after another. For running repairs this vehicle was brought on 07.07.2012 and the defects pointed out were removed to the satisfaction of complainant. By that time the vehicle had covered 3,231 KMs. History of vehicle dated 07.07.2012 shows that it was dropped at his residence by his driver. Engine was replaced on 27.09.2012 after covering 5,027 KMs. In this way problem about noise of engine was removed. Other problems were result of normal bear and tear and that too after accident. So, it cannot be alleged that there was any manufacturing defect. He did not examined any expert witness to prove his case. In the absence of any report it cannot be presumed that there is manufacturing defect. To this effect reliance can be placed upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled “General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs. G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. and Ors” in First Appeal No.723, 736 of 2006 decided on 07.02.2013. If any particular part is defective then the same can be replaced as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra” (2006) 4 SCC 644. Looking from any angle there is no evidence to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle and O.Ps. cannot be directed to replace the same. Learned District Forum has taken into consideration all the aspects from each and every angle. Impugned order dated 18.03.2014 is well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. So, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

January 23^rd,                         Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K. Bishnoi

2017                                       Member                                 Judicial Member

                                                Addl. Bench                          Addl. Bench

R.K