The the brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Mahindra Bolero+ vide Model AC9 STR 2WD BS3 from Ops 1 & 2 for Rs.6, 71,452/- vide Retail Invoice No. PAPL/0975/13-14 dt.23.11.2013 of which the OP.3 is the manufacturer and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant by 6.00 PM whereas the accessories were delivered by 6.30 PM. It is submitted that by 6.30 PM there was no mechanic present in the garage of Ops 1 & 2 and hence the OP.2 advised the complainant to fit the accessories at CAR FASHION, the garage where accessories are being fitted. The mechanic of the garage while fitting the accessories found some sort of damage in the Bumper and Jalli and the fact was intimated to Ops 1 & 2 on the next day i.e. 24.11.2013 but the Ops advised the complainant to come on 25.11.13. It is further submitted that on 25.11.13 the Ops denied to replace the Bumper but assured that they will paint the front bumper at the time of first service and gave written assurance to that effect. The complainant submitted that during first service, the OP.2 refused to replace the defective parts. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the defective parts with new one or to refund its cost and to pay Rs.70, 000/- towards compensation, costs and interest to the complainant.
2. The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the purchase of alleged vehicle by the complainant through OP.1 who acts as a Commission Agent on behalf of OP.3 and hence the OP.1 has no liability in this case. Denying the delivery of accessories to the complainant to be fixed in the vehicle outside their garage, the OP.1 contended that as per general practice no vehicle can be delivered to any customer without fitting the accessories from OP.1. It is also further contended that the allegations of the complainant are after thought and the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his allegations and the complainant has no complaint during first service of the vehicle. Thus denying any liability on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the transactions and dealings between answering respondent and OP No.1 are on principal to principal basis and the OP.1 is not the agent of OP.3 for any purpose. It is contended that, since the vehicle is new one and purchased before one/two hours, it was the duty of the complainant to produce the same before OP.1 if any defect noticed in the Bumper and Grill/Jalli but without doing so, hammering the vehicle through an unauthorized service centre is contrary to the warranty manual. It is also contended that the OP.1 is no way deficient in service and not liable to pay any compensation or replace any part for the fault of the complainant and the complainant never communicated anything regarding defects of the vehicle to the OP.3. Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
4. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. The Op.3 also filed affidavit. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
5. In this case the vehicle purchased by the complainant from OP.1 on 23.11.13 is an admitted fact. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle was delivered to him late in the evening when there was no mechanic in the garage of OP.1 for which Bumper of the vehicle could not be fitted and as per advice of the OP.2; he took the vehicle to another garage to fit the Bumper in the vehicle. The mechanic of that garage found some sort of damage inside the Bumper. On complaint the Ops gave written assurance to paint the front Bumper during first service but they did not do so.
6. The Ops 1 & 2 stated that before fitting of accessories a new vehicle cannot be released from the showroom and the complainant has never contacted with the Ops regarding defect in the bumper and the Ops have not given any written assurance to paint the bumper.
7. In this case the complainant has purchased a new vehicle and after delivery he has fitted the bumper in another garage. If the bumper and Jalli found defective, it was the duty of the complainant to produce the same before OP.1 for taking necessary action by the OP but without doing so it was ascertained that the mechanic of the garage tried to repair the Bumper through a hammer. It is not understood as to how the complainant allowed an unauthorized mechanic to hammer the bumper. Repair of bumper by the mechanic of an unauthorized service centre after one or two hours of purchase certainly violates the warranty conditions. It was necessary on the part of the complainant to produce the vehicle before OP.1 for fitting of bumper and jalli on the next day when found defects and to intimate the fact to OP No.3.
8. Further the complainant stated that the OP.1 gave written assurance to paint the bumper during first service but failed to do so. No document has been filed in support of above contentions of the complainant. At the time of hearing, the Forum insisted the complainant to produce any paper showing written assurance of the OP.1 to paint the bumper but he failed to produce the same which is a vital document to support the case of the complainant. On the other hand all the Ops stated that they have no knowledge regarding defects in the bumper and jalli.
9. From the above discussions it was ascertained that repair of bumper by unauthorized garage soon after the purchase of the vehicle violates the warranty condition. Further the complainant has not produced the written assurance letter of the OP.1 to paint the bumper as contended in the complaint petition. In view of above facts, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant which bears no merit. No orders as to costs.
(to dict.)
