| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 221 of 2015 Date of Institution: 10.4.2015 Date of Decision: 22.01.2016 Sukhdev Singh son of Sawinder Singh resident of Village Talwandi Dassunda Singh Block Majitha District Amritsar Complainant Versus - M/s. Universal Motors through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer, HO Four Fields, G.T. Road, Amrisar
- M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra through its Managing Director, Mahindra Tower, G.M. Bhosale Marg, Mumbai-400018
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Davinder Singh,Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Amit Monga, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh. Mohan Arora,Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sukhdev Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased vehicle Mahindra Balero SIX from opposite party No1, manufactured by opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs. 7,89,053/- which he got financed from HDFC Bank Ltd, Amritsar. According to the complainant the vehicle was creating troubles of steering, gear and pick up problems and the complainant brought these defects to opposite party No.1 on every free service. Complainant has alleged that he was surprised to see that wherever any scratch occurred in the vehicle, the body of the vehicle is found affected with rust and at one place the body of the vehicle is fully eaten by rust. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.1 and got inspected the vehicle, but they failed to give satisfactory reply. Opposite party No.1 has also refused to register the complaint of the complainant and forward the same to opposite party No.2 for the change of the vehicle. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to change the defective vehicle with new one of same model with extended warranty or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 7,89,053/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that complainant got affected regular free services from the authorized workshop of opposite party No.1. It was denied that vehicle was creating troubles of steering, gear and pick up problems. The complainant has not placed on record any documents from where it can be established that the complainant has made the complaint regarding steering, gear and pick up problem. It was submitted that complainant visited many times for running repair of the vehicle but never complained for repair work done by the replying opposite party. The complainant lastly brought his vehicle on 26.5.2015 for accidental repair at 36268 km and job card No. 2892 dated 26.5.2015 was prepared and complainant reported the front windshield damage, front bumper damage, front grill damage, LH foot rest damage, one wheel cover broken, LH running board scratches and dash box damage etc.All the defects reported by the complainant were rectified by opposite party No.1 . It was submitted that alleged scratches were occurred in the accident and the same denting and painting work was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as he has concealed the fact of accident from this Forum. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle . It was submitted that defect of rust is not covered under warranty. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19.
- Opposite party No.1 tendered copy of maintenance schedule Ex.OP1/2 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/14.
- Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Mohinder Partap Singh Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4.
- 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 the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased vehicle Mahindra Bolero car bearing registration No. PB-02-CM-1155 from opposite party No.1 which was manufactured by opposite party No.2 as per sale certificate Ex.C-4. The said vehicle was manufactured in March 2014 and was delivered to the complainant on 30.6.2014. Complainant submitted that the vehicle was creating troubles of steering,gear and pick up problems. The complainant also noticed that wherever any any scratch occurred in the vehicle, the body of the vehicle is found affected with rust and at one place the body of the vehicle is fully eaten by rust. The complainant reported the matter to opposite party No.1 and got inspected the vehicle, but they failed to give satisfactory reply. Opposite party No.1 has also refused to register the complaint of the complainant and forward the same to opposite party No.2 for the change of the vehicle. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whereas case of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands . He has concealed the fact of accident of the vehicle in question from this Forum. The complainant has never reported any such defect to the opposite party No.1 nor to opposite party No.2. The vehicle in question was manufactured in March, 2014 and delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant on 30.6.2014, so it was a brand new car. Opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to opposite party No.1 for first free service on 10.7.2014 and he never lodged any such complaint of problem of steering, gear and pick up nor he lodged any complaint about rust to any part of the vehicle. At the time of first free service, the complainant has already run 5200 km. Thereafter the vehicle came to opposite party No.1 for second free service on 25.8.2014 and for third free service on 20.11.2014 at the meter reading of the vehicle 19778 and all the times the complainant never lodged any complaint regarding any problems in the vehicle nor any complaint regarding rust to any part of the body of the vehicle of the complainant was reported. Thereafter the vehicle came to opposite party No.1 on 26.5.2015 for accidental repairs at meter reading 36268 km . Prior to it the vehicle came to opposite party on 11.3.2015 for paid service at meter reading 29491. The job sheets in this regard are Ex.OP1/4 dated 10.7.2014, job sheet dated 25.8.2014 Ex.OP1/6, job sheet dated 20.11.2014 Ex.OP1/6A. Ex.OP1/2 is schedule of checking of the vehicle and Ex.OP1/10 is the inspection report. The complainant never reported any defect in the vehicle in question nor he ever reported about rust to any part of the body of the vehicle and the time the vehicle of the complainant was fully checked and returned to the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 in June 2014. The vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant in June 2014 as per sale certificate Ex.C-4. The said vehicle was manufactured in March 2014 as is evident from this sale certificate Ex.C-4 produced by the complainant himself. The vehicle was fully tested and then delivered to the complainant. The history of the said vehicle Ex.OP1/3 fully proves that the vehicle came to opposite party No.1 for first free service on 10.7.2014 at meter reading 198 km.Thereafter the said vehicle came to opposite party No.1 for second free service on 25.8.2014 and thereafter for 3rd free service on 20.11.2014 at meter reading 19778 km as per job sheets of first service Ex.OP1/5 dated 10.7.2014 and job sheet of second service dated 25.8.2014 Ex.OP1/6 and job sheet of third service dated 20.11.2014 Ex.OP1/6A. The complainant never reported any defect in the vehicle nor he lodged any complaint of rust to any part of the body of the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle came to opposite party No.1 on 26.5.2015 for accidental repairs at meter reading 36268 km. Even at the time of paid service on 11.3.2015 at meter reading 29491, the complainant never reported any defect in the vehicle in question nor lodged any complaint with the opposite party regarding rust to any part of the body of the vehicle. The complainant never lodged any report to opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer of the vehicle nor he placed on record any report of any expert or mechanic that there is any rust on any part of the body of the vehicle of the complainant except the photographs Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-19 which do not prove that there is rust on any part of the body of the vehicle of the complainant or what was the reason of the rust, if any on any part of the body of the vehicle of the complainant. The vehicle in question was manufactured in March, 2014 and was delivered to the complainant in June 2014. So it stands fully proved on record that opposite party issued fresh and latest model of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. If there is any minor defect in the body of the vehicle of the complainant, opposite party is bound to repair the same without charging any amount, from the complainant as the vehicle is still under warranty period of two years . However, the complainant has failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect which is beyond repair in the vehicle of the complainant. So the present complaint filed by the complainant for the replacement of the vehicle of the complainant or to refund the price of the vehicle is not tenable.
- Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to the opposite parties that if there is any minor defect in the body of the vehicle of the complainant, the same be repaired without charging any amount from the complainant as the vehicle is still under warranty period. However, the request of the complainant regarding replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle, is hereby declined. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. 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.
22.01.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh ) President /R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma) Member Member | |
