DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 991/14
Shri Om Prakash Minocha
S/o Late Shri G.R. Minocha
R/o C-263, Vivek Vihar, delhi ….Complainant
Vs.
- Shri Mukesh Kumar
Territory Service Manager
Customer Care Department
Maruit Suzuki India Ltd.
1, Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 70
- Shri Sinha
Service Manager
Competent Automobile Company Ltd.
Gazipur, Delhi – 110 096 ….Opponents
Date of Institution: 13.11.2014
Judgment Reserved for : 16.08.2016
Judgment Passed on : 23.08.2016
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)
Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
The complainant Shri Om Prakash Minocha has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against Shri Mukesh Kumar, Territory Service Manager, Customer Care Department, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi(OP-1) and Shri Sinha, Service Manager, Competent Automobile Company Ltd., Gazipur, Delhi (OP-2) to replace the company fitted LPG kit and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and pain.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Maruti vehicle in the year 2012 from OP-1. The vehicle was of petrol with an option to switch over to LPG. It is stated that LPG kit have problem from initial stages itself which were cured by OP-2 who was authorised sales and service dealer of OP-1. It is further stated that he used to get the service from OP-2. On 13.10.2014, the complainant lodged complaint vide reference no. 540491 with OP-1 and in pursuant to the said complaint, OP-2 told the complainant that the complete LPG kit needs to be replaced. When he protested, he was told that since the vehicle has run up to 45,000 kms, the warranty was only up to 40,000 kms. He has also stated that the LPG problem started when the vehicle had run only 25,000 kms. He was offered total cost of Rs. 2000/- LPG kit to the tune of Rs. 13,000/- labour cost. Thus, he has prayed for replacement of company fitted LPG kit in vehicle no. DL-7CAH-1000, Model 2012, Maruti Wagon-R Lxi with cost of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental pain and agony along with interest.
- In the WS filed on behalf of OP-1, it has been stated that the complainant has no locus standi to implead OP-1 i.e. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Territory Service Manager; complainant was not a consumer of OP; the vehicle was out of warranty which stood concluded on 11.02.2014 by efflux of time; the complainant used domestic LPG in his vehicle violating the provisions of “The Liquefied Petroleum Gas(Regulation of use in motor vehicles) Order 2001” and also “The Central Motor Vehicle Act & Rules, 1988/89”. Other facts have also been denied.
In the WS filed on behalf of OP-2, they have also taken various pleas such as the complaint was barred on the ground of limitation as the complainant purchased the vehicle in February 2012, whereas the complaint was filed in October 2014 after a period of two years; it was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party as the dealer M/s. T.R. Sawhney was not implead as one of the party; it was out of warranty; domestic LPG was used etc. etc.
- In support of its case, the complainant has not filed evidence on affidavit.
In defence, OP-1 has examined Shri Ashish Chauhan, Manager Legal, who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. He has stated that the complainant did not make any complaint in regard to LPG kit during the tenure of warranty. He has further stated that the complainant used domestic LPG as fuel in his vehicle and committed grave violation of warranty terms and conditions under Clause 4 (e), (h) and (o) of warranty policy. He has further deposed that OP-1 being a manufacturer does not sell or earmark any vehicle in favour of any individual customer and the relationship between the dealers including OP-1 was based on Principal-to-Principal basis and was governed by the Dealership Agreement. He has got exhibited Dealership agreement (Ex.R-1/2). He has also got exhibited copy of judgement (Ex.R-1/1), copy of warranty (Ex. R-1/3) and job card and satisfaction voucher (Ex. R-1/4).
OP-2 has also examined Shri Ranjeet Sinha, Works Manager who has deposed on affidavit. He has also deposed the facts, which have been stated in the WS. He has stated that the complaint was barred on the ground of limitation as the vehicle was purchased in February 2012, whereas the complaint was filed in October 2014, after a period of two years. M/s. T.R. Sawhney, dealer, was not made as a party. The vehicle has run out of warranty period as the warranty was only up to 40,000 kms., whereas the mileage run by the vehicle was 45,509 kms.
He has further deposed that the problem was due to use of domestic LPG kit.
- We have heard Ld. Counsel for OPs and have perused the material placed on record. It is the principal of law that it is for the consumer or complainant to prove his case by producing any evidence. Since the complainant has not filed any evidence on record to prove his complaint, the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint cannot be said to be proved. On the contrary, the evidence led by OP-1 and OP-2 have to be relied upon. The version given by both the OPs that the complainant used domestic LPG kit in his vehicle have to be accepted.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves its dismissal. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)
Member Member
(SUKHDEV SINGH)
President
