BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 354 of 2015

Date of Institution: 03-06-2015

Date of Decision: 16-03-2016  

Pawan Kumar Verma, proprietor M/s.P.K.Verma & Co. Engineer Contractor 120B, Nika Singh Colony, Ram Tirath road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra through its Managing Director, Gate Way Building, Apolo Bundh, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
2. Universal Motors, through its prop/ partner, Near Canal G.T.Road, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Amit Monga, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Pawan Kumar Verma under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased the vehicle ‘Chotha Hathi’ bearing registration No.PB-07-AC-1488 from Opposite Party No.2 in the name of earlier partner Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, who later on started separate business and said vehicle came into the share of complainant due to settlement of shares. Complainant alleges that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle, it was assured by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant as well as to said Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal that said vehicle is perfect in all respects and no complaint of any type would come in future. It was assured that said vehicle is technically perfect and the complainant, bonafide believing the version to be true, purchased the vehicle in question. However, right from the date of purchase till date, the said vehicle remained most of the time in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for the purpose of rectifying the defect which developed again and again in the  vehicle and thus causing unnecessary physical as well as financial loss to the complainant firm in that respect. Said vehicle has manufacturing defect in the vehicle as disclosed by the concerned engineer of Opposite Party No.2 and it was also disclosed that the defect  can only be rectified for temporary purpose and not for permanent purpose. Till date, the complainant firm has spent a sum of Rs.1 lac for repairing the same from the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 . Last time it was repaired on 17.3.2015 and prior to that it was repaired on 4.11.2014, 11.10.2014 and 6.10.2014. On account of the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, the vehicle in question always remained on standing in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for most of the time. Legal notice dated 2.5.2015 was also served upon the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to replace the vehicle in question and to pay the damage to the tune of Rs.2 lacs alongwith costs of repair of Rs.1 lac. Litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that all the averments and contentions as made in the complaint are denied. It is submitted that all the transactions with dealers are on principal to principal basis and Opposite Party No.1 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers and as such there is no privity of contract between Opposite Party No.1 and ultimate customer of the vehicle in question. Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commission of any act by its dealers. The dealer is a  separate principal and not all agent of the manufacturer. Thus, the dealer being separate legal entity can sue and can be sued on its own.  The present complaint is time barred. The vehicle in question was purchased on 27.7.2011 and the complaint has been filed in June, 2015 i.e. after the expiry of more than two years. Moreover, the complainant is a contractor working for profit and gain for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant is not the consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. It is further submitted that the vehicle was not purchased from Opposite Party No.2 and it has been purchased from M/s.Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur. The vehicle was in fact the perfect vehicle however, it was handled negligently. Complainant even did not get the 2^nd free service conducted, therefore, as per warranty terms & conditions, warranty gets lapsed. Even otherwise, at the time of filing the case, the vehicle was out of warranty. However, the complainant has just mentioned that the vehicle has defect. What defect has risen, has not been disclosed. Perusal of the complainant document dated 26.9.2014 reveals that vehicle had run 86390 Kms. Thus, it is false to allege that right from that date of purchase till date, the vehicle remained in workshop. No document of previous dates before 26.9.2014 has been attached in order to establish his case and to establish that vehicle was having defect since its purchase. There is nothing on record to prove the case of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed very material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The vehicle in dispute has been purchased by Sanjeev Kumar from Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur on 27.7.2011 for commercial purposes. Whenever, any problem is reported by the customer to Opposite Party No.2, the same was rectified as per the proper satisfaction of the customer. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his commercial company and himself not plying the said vehicle can not be said that he is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, said vehicle in question has been purchased by Sanjeev Kumar and not by Pawan Kumar, complainant. The complainant has brought the vehicle in question for the first time for running repair at 73988 Kms on 25.7.2013 after the gap of 2 years and demanded repair of starting trouble check, diesel leakage check and oil filter check and after the proper inspection of the vehicle in question, the engineer of the workshop found that injectors need to  be repaired, diesel filter need to be replaced, but at that time, customer refused to do so and took his vehicle in dispute  without repair  for the reasons best known to him.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 alongwith documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Mohinder Partap Singh Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.Op1/4  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
6. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Paravinderjit Singh, General Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. 
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that one Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal purchased the vehicle ‘Chotha Hathi’ bearing registration No.PB-07-AC-1488  from Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur vide Invoice Ex.OP1/2 dated 27.7.2011 for Rs.2,93,000/-. Said vehicle later on was transferred in the name of complainant as per certificate of registration Ex.C6 with warranty of one year or 40000 Kms whichever is earlier. Complainant submitted that Opposite Party No.2 assured that said vehicle is perfect in all respect, but  right from the date of purchase, the vehicle in dispute remained most of the time in the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for the purpose of rectifying the defect. The vehicle has, therefore, manufacturing defect and the complainant has spent about Rs.1 lac on the repair of this vehicle.   Last time it was repaired on 17.3.2015 and prior to that it was repaired on 4.11.2014, 11.10.2014 and 6.10.2014. Complainant also served legal notice on 2.5.2015 Ex.C3, to the Opposite Parties, but in vain. Opposite Parties  have failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle in question nor replaced the said vehicle with new one. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant is barred by limitation. The vehicle was purchased on 27.7.2011. The warranty of the vehicle was for one year or 40000 Kms whichever is earlier. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the vehicle was purchased by one Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal from Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur vide Invoice dated 27.7.2011 Ex.OP1/2 and that too for commercial purposes. Moreover, it is commercial vehicle. As such, the complainant does not become the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. As per  history of the vehicle Ex.OP2/2, the customer brought this vehicle for the first time to Opposite Party No.2 for running repair at 73988 Kms  25.7.2013 after a gap of 2 years and asked for repair of starting trouble check, diesel leakage check and oil filter check and after the proper inspection of the vehicle in question, the engineer of the workshop found that injectors need to  be repaired, diesel filter need to be replaced, but at that time, customer refused to do so and took away the vehicle in dispute  without repair  for the reasons best known to him. Thereafter, the customer brought his vehicle in question for running repair at 86390 Kms on 26.9.2014 and demanded repair of starting trouble check, engine check, almp check, fan direct mode check and engine overhauling and after the repair work, the vehicle was delivered to customer on 6.10.2014 to the entire satisfaction of the complainant/ customer. Thereafter, again  on 11.10.2014 the customer brought his vehicle at 86590 Kms for electric fault in starting problem. Opposite Party No.2 rectified the said defect on the same day and delivered the vehicle after the full satisfaction of the customer. Again on 03.11.2014 the customer brought the vehicle in question at 86941 Kms and demanded the repair of LHS front headlight, reverse light, wiper lever, brakeless effective, rubber door trim/f, gear lever play, etc. and the same was resolved and delivered the vehicle on 4.11.2014 after proper satisfaction of the customer. Again on 13.1.2015 customer brought his vehicle at 87270 Kms when despite external hit to radiator, when coolant gets leaked, the driver continued to drive the vehicle resulting in engine overhauling. After necessary repair the vehicle was delivered on 15.1.2015 after the full satisfaction of the customer. Then on 17.3.2015 the customer again visited the workshop and brought his vehicle for running repair at 87270 Kms for second and reverse gear and door glass not move check, AF Assy Check and the same was rectified by the engineers on the same day and delivered the vehicle to the customer on the same day after the full satisfaction.   Every time the vehicle of the complainant was fully repaired and was delivered to the customer after full satisfaction as is evident from vehicle history Ex.OP2/2 and the relevant documents duly signed by the customer. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant could not prove on record any inherent/ manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle was brought to Opposite Party No.2 for the first time when the warranty Ex.OP1/3 of the vehicle has already expired and the Opposite Party No.2 repaired the vehicle to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties  qua the complainant.        
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the vehicle in question ‘Chotha Hathi’ bearing registration No.PB-07-AC-1488 was purchased by one  Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal from Rampa Automobiles, Hoshiarpur vide Invoice Ex.OP1/2 dated 27.7.2011 for Rs.2,93,000/-( Said vehicle later on was transferred in the name of complainant as per certificate of registration Ex.C6), with warranty of one year or 40000 Kms whichever is earlier.  As per  history of the vehicle Ex.OP2/2, the customer brought this vehicle for the first time to Opposite Party No.2 for running repair at 73988 Kms on  25.7.2013 after a gap of 2 years and asked for repair of starting trouble check, diesel leakage check and oil filter check and after the proper inspection of the vehicle in question, the engineer of the workshop found that injectors need to  be repaired, diesel filter need to be replaced, but at that time, customer refused to do so and took away the vehicle in dispute  without repair  for the reasons best known to him. Thereafter, the customer brought his vehicle in question for running repair at 86390 Kms on 26.9.2014 and demanded repair of starting trouble check, engine check, almp check, fan direct mode check and engine overhauling and after the repair work, the vehicle was delivered to customer on 6.10.2014 to the entire satisfaction of the complainant/ customer. Thereafter, again  on 11.10.2014 the customer brought his vehicle at 86590 Kms for electric fault in starting problem. Opposite Party No.2 rectified the said defect on the same day and delivered the vehicle to the customer after full satisfaction of the customer. Again on 03.11.2014 the customer brought the vehicle in question at 86941 Kms and demanded the repair of LHS front headlight, reverse light, wiper lever, brakeless effective, rubber door trim/f, gear lever play, etc. and the same was resolved and delivered the vehicle on 4.11.2014 after proper satisfaction of the customer. Again on 13.1.2015 customer brought his vehicle at 87270 Kms for accidental repair  when despite external hit to radiator, when coolant gets leaked, the driver continued to drive the vehicle resulting in engine overhauling. After necessary repair the vehicle was delivered on 15.1.2015 after full satisfaction of the customer. Then on 17.3.2015 the customer again visited the workshop and brought his vehicle for running repair at 87270 Kms for second and reverse gear and door glass not move check, AF Assy Check and the same was rectified by the engineers of Opposite Party on the same day and delivered the vehicle to the customer on the same day after full satisfaction.  Every time the vehicle of the complainant was fully repaired and was delivered to the customer after full satisfaction as is evident from vehicle history Ex.OP2/2 and the relevant documents job sheets duly signed by the customer. The complainant could not prove on record any inherent/ manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Moreover, the complainant brought the vehicle in question to Opposite Party No.2 for the first time on 25.7.2013 for running repair at 73988 Kms, whereas the warranty of the vehicle in question as per standing warranty Ex.Op1/3 has already expired on 27.7.2012 or 40000 Kms whichever is earlier. The aforesaid history of the vehicle Ex.OP2/2 fully proves that whenever the complainant brought his vehicle for running repair to Opposite Party No.2, the same was repaired and all the problems were rectified to the entire satisfaction of the complainant on chargeable basis because the warranty of the engine has already expired and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after his full satisfaction. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.     
11. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 16-03-2016.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                        President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                   Member                         Member