Delhi

North East

CC/118/2014

Siya Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Eicher Trucks & Buses Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

                                                  Complaint Case No. 118/14

 

 

In the matter of:

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

	Sh. Siya Ram S/o Sh. Chain Pal R/o D-127, D-Block West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s Eicher Trucks and Buses Through its Director At: K.C. Enclave, No.45, Bazulia Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017     M/s Sincere Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Through its director Godown No.1, Manraj Garden Complex Wazirabad Road, Near Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi-110094	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

25.03.14 17.03.23 28.03.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a truck make Eicher Model 2012 from Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.1 i.e. M/s Eicher trucks and buses is manufacturer of the said truck. The said truck was having a warranty as a whole for 12 months and 36 months in respect of engine and gear box. The said vehicle was troublesome from the very beginning. On 11.02.14 at about 11:30 p.m. the truck in question reached near Ghazipur flyover and all of a sudden the engine of the truck was stopped. Thereafter, the said truck could not be started and on the next morning the Complainant called the Eicher Onroad Service (EOS). The Opposite Party sent a mechanic to the spot who inspected the vehicle. The vehicle was towed to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 by the crane. There the truck was inspected and a bill of Rs. 1,81,244/- was raised and the Complainant was asked to deposit the said amount for repairing the said truck. The Complainant was told that warranty  of the vehicle was over and therefore, the Complainant had to pay the bill. The Complainant told that the warranty in respect of engine and gear box was for 3 years. The Opposite Party admitted this fact but told the Complainant that driver of the truck applied the break or had changed the gear improperly. The Opposite Party refused to repair the truck in warranty. It is the case of the Complainant that since then the vehicle is lying at the service station of the Opposite Party and on this account the Complainant has a monetary loss of Rs. 70,000/- per month. It is the case of the Complainant that the truck in question was purchased by him for earning his livelihood. Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest . He has also prayed for compensation of Rs. 70,000/- per month from 11.02.14 till date along with interest. He has prayed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges.  

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that this Forum has not pecuniary jurisdiction to try the matter and the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is also alleged that the vehicle in question was used by the Complainant for commercial purpose. It has admitted that the truck in question was purchased by the Complainant and warranty as a whole was for a period of 12 months and 36 months in respect of engine and gear box. It is stated that the warranty does not apply to the damage caused by misuse such as overloading, improper driving etc. The Opposite Party No.1 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The  Opposite Party No.2 has taken the objection that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer. The Opposite Party No.2 had admitted that warranty in respect of gear box and engine is for 36 months. It is alleged that the vehicle in question has done 52,690 kms and the engine failure was due to over running and improper use of breaks and gear by the driver. It is alleged that it was negligency on the part of driver. It is stated that the vehicle in question was repaired on the instructions of the Complainant but he has not taken the delivery of the vehicle. The Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the complaint is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Kumar, AR for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri Navneet Sood, Head Services of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statements of respective Opposite Parties have been supported.

 

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties.
8. From the perusal of the file it is revealed that the following facts are admitted.

1.  It is admitted that Complainant purchased a truck manufactured by Opposite Party No.1
2. It is admitted that there was warranty of 36 months regarding the engine and gear box of the said truck.
3. It is admitted that there occurred a problem in the engine of the said truck within 3 years of its purchase i.e. within the warranty period.

9. The case of the Opposite Party is that the truck in question was being used for commercial purpose on the other hand the case of the Complainant is that the said truck was being used for earning his livelihood. The Opposite Parties did not place any evidence on record to show that the truck in question was not used for earning livelihood or that it was being used for a purpose other than to earn livelihood.  
10. The case of the Complainant is that the problem in the engine occurred. On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that the problem in the engine occurred due to negligence of the driver, improper used of the breaks and overloading etc. The case of the Opposite Party is that the vehicle was inspected in the work shop and during the said inspection it was found that the problem in the engine occurred due to negligence of driver, overload and improper change of the gears etc. However, no such inspection report has been paced on record.  Therefore, the defence taken by the Opposite Party cannot be accepted.
11. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to repair the truck of the Complainant within one month of the receipt of the order. It is also ordered that the Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The prayer of the Complainant regarding payment of Rs. 70,000/- per month cannot be accepted for the reason that the Complainant has not placed anything on record to show that he was not doing any work during the said period or that he had a loss of Rs. 70,000/- per month due to the non-repairing of the truck.  
12. Order announced on 28.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President