Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/852/2013

Gautam Shankar S/o Vinod Parkash Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Khanna Car Plaza Pvt.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Jaiswal

28 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

                                                                             Complaint No.852/2013.

                                                                             Date of institution: 26.11.2013.

                                                                             Date of decision:28.9.2017.

 

Gautam Shankar S/o Sh. Vinod Parkash Gupta, R/o House No.1800, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s. Khanna Car, Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Aggarsain College, Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri.
2. Hundai Motor India Ltd., 5^th & 6^th floor, Corporate-I, Panni Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-1100250.
3. Hundai Motor India Ltd. DLF Towers-B, 3^rd floor, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh.

          ….Respondents.

BEFORE        SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.    

 

Present:          Sh. Atul Jaiswal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                       Smt. Seema Sehgal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                       Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.

 

 ORDER:       (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                       The complainant-Gautam Shankar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that he purchased a car make I20 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.7,67,231/- vide invoice No.H201300108 dt.12.06.2012.  It is alleged that the said car was looking old one and the complainant requested the Op No.1 to give another car but they assured the complainant that the said car was fresh one.  It is further alleged that when the complainant went 5-6 KMs., then he looked at the speedometer which was not working and was not showing the K.M. reading and some noise was coming from the car.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Op No.1 to replace the car in question but they refused to replace the same.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached another agency of the Ops i.e. Commercial Hyndai, Saharanpur where they attached the speedometer wire.  It is further alleged that after some time, another problem was noted by the complainant that the fog was being created on the glasses of car which the complainant complained to the Ops but they did not hear the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant got checked the car from the authorized Commercial Hyundai Saharanpur, who after getting checked the same told that while doing the Teflon coating by the agency had sprayed the chemical on the glasses which cannot be got correct.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint.  Hence, this complaint, wherein it has been prayed that Ops be directed to replace the used and defective car with a new one failing which to return the price of the said car and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statements separately.  Op No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint denied in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Ops No.2 & 3 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the provision of Section 13(1) (c) of C.P.Act, 1986 has not been complied with; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has concealed the material fact that prior to reporting the alleged concern of glass on 11.12.2013, the vehicle was reported for accidental repair.  It is further concealed by the complainant that as per available repair history, concerns regarding the Speedometer was reported on 23.07.2013 (RO submitted by complainant) and as admitted by the complainant, it was only a minor adjustment, which was carried out and vehicle delivered and the same fact was communicated by the Op No.1 to the complainant vide letter dt. 20.07.2013.  As per reports available, it is submitted that on 07.12.2013 the vehicle was reported for accidental repair and the accident was so severe that front lamp assy, retainer assy, bumper cover mtg, bracket-front bumper, upper support, cover-front bumper had to be replaced.  It is submitted that thereafter on 12.05.2014 at mileage of 9595 Kms., on 26.05.2014 at mileage of 15724 Kms. and on 15.09.2014 was again reported for accidental repairs.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the contention mentioned in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

5.                     Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant, Annexure-CW/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

6.                     On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit, Annexure-RW/A along with documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R23 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.1.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered in evidence affidavit, Annexure-RW/A and closed evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3.       

7.                     During the course of arguments, learned counsel filed an application for directing the Ops to produce the PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection Report) issued at the time of delivery of the vehicle from the company/factory for just decision of the case.  In reply to this application, counsel for the Ops have made joint statement in which they have stated that pre delivery inspection and warranty registration card dated 12.6.2013 has already been exhibited as annexure R.2 in the evidence of OP No.1.

8.                     We have perused annexure R.2 which read as under, “ I have received the owner’s manual and service booklet and have been advised on Hyundai’s Warranty Policy.  I have examined the vehicle and found no defects.          Sd/- Customer’s signature.”

9.                     From the above document annexure R.2 it is clear that the complainant has already received the Pre Delivery Inspection and Warranty Registration of car, as such the application is dismissed. 

10.                   We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.       

11.                   After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it emerges that the defects as alleged by the complainant are that the speedometer was not working and was not showing the kilometers and some noise was coming from the car for which the complainant approached the Ops to replace the car.  It has been further pleaded that fog was being created while driving the car on the glasses of the car.  From the perusal of the documents placed on record and after going through the facts of the complaint, we are of the considered view that the alleged defects in the care are not manufacturing defects which require replacement of car with new one as prayed by complainant.  Secondly, the complainant should have got appointed some technical person or placed on record the report of some expert to prove the defects in the car in question but he has failed to do so.  Moreover, the defects shown in the complainant had already been removed by the Ops as mentioned in para No.3 of preliminary objections of reply of Ops No.2 & 3, hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merits in the complaint of the complainant, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:28.9.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)        (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER.