Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/612/2018

Deepti Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinder Ghai

10 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/612/2018
Date of Institution	:	28/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	10/02/2020

 

Deepti Singla wife of Mandeep Singh, aged 36 years, residents of Flat No.610, Block-C, New Generation Maple Apartments, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Orchid Business Park Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Manager.

2.      Joshi Auto Wheels Private Ltd., Plot No.16, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Manager. 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.          In short allegations are, on 28.10.2016, complainant had purchased a Nissan Terrano Prime XLD car as per description given in para 1 of the consumer complaint on payment of Rs.11,26,281/- to the dealer/OP-2 and the car was manufactured by OP-1. Her case is, from the date of purchase i.e. 28.10.2016, car started giving troubles including harrowing sound, vibration on the speed of 70 kms. per hour. The car was reported to OP-2, but, it was not corrected. Maintained on 2.11.2016, complainant had approached OP-2, but, it did not mention the entire problems and only mentioned problems with regard to USB and parking switch.  Further case is, OP-2 at the time of servicing of the vehicle had claimed to have adjusted the defects after dismantling the engine and gear box but the defects persisted. Vehicle was again examined on 3.3.2017, parts were replaced, but, with no effect. The vehicle was under warranty and it had barely ran 10000 kms., but, defects were not removed. Hence, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint and prayed for either to refund the amount of Rs.11,26,281/- alongwith interest or replace the same with new one besides compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh.

2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and denied there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is also the case, vehicle had already ran over 40000 kms. without any defect and now the present consumer complaint is being preferred. Further case is, vehicle in question was financed from ICICI Bank and on default of EMIs, ICICI Bank had initiated proceedings before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh.  The bank instituted a suit against the complainant and vehicle was taken into possession by the financier under the orders of the Hon’ble DRT and now the present consumer complaint has been preferred. Further case is, liability of the manufacturer is on principal to principal basis. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.

3.         OP-2 filed its separate written reply and claimed itself to be the dealer of OP-1.  It is their case, allegations are false and the minor problems which were brought to notice were cured and the vehicle has already ran over 40000 kms. without any defect and now the consumer complaint is being filed that too when the complainant failed to pay the EMIs and the ICICI Bank initiated the proceeding before the Hon’ble DRT, Chandigarh. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.

4.         Neither rejoinder nor any rebuttal evidence were filed by the complainant despite grant of opportunity for the said purpose.

5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-

7.         A cursory glance of the pleadings of the OPs as well as the documents produced on record i.e. Annexure RA and Annexure C shows the vehicle in question was financed by ICICI Bank Ltd., Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and it is also the case, due to default in paying EMIs, bank had filed a case against the complainant before the Hon’ble DRT-III, Chandigarh and the Hon’ble Tribunal has passed order Annexure C on 17.12.2018 vide which the authorized officer of the bank was permitted to take the custody of the vehicle if the installments not paid. It is not the case, there was further development and the installments were paid. It is also not denied of the vehicle having been taken into possession by the ICICI Bank under the orders of the Hon’ble DRT-III, Chandigarh. This speaks of the conduct of the complainant as well as she had concealed the said facts in the body of the consumer complaint of the vehicle financed by ICICI Bank, Chandigarh.  These facts were concealed and withheld from this Forum with a view to hoodwink and the consumer complaint was filed when the proceedings were initiated before Hon’ble DRT. In such a situation when there is concealment of material facts, even merits of the case need not to be examined. 

8.         We have already referred, as per pleadings and documents produced, vehicle was financed with ICICI Bank, Chandigarh and complainant defaulted in payment of EMIs and on proceedings being launched before the Hon’ble DRT, Chandigarh, vehicle was taken into possession. The complainant very cleverly had not arrayed ICICI Bank, Chandigarh as OP-3 in the present consumer complaint and even she had not produced documents to show what claim was lodged by the ICICI Bank before the Hon’ble DRT against her and this gives rise to the inference, present consumer complaint was filed when the vehicle was taken into possession by ICICI Bank under the orders of the Hon’ble DRT and it seems complainant intends to obtain conflicting orders from both institutions i.e. this Forum as well as Hon’ble DRT. 

9.         The complainant has annexed with the consumer complaint application for inspection of the vehicle while the true facts are vehicle appears to be in the custody of ICICI Bank under a lawful order passed by the Hon’ble DRT. How the vehicle was to be produced when the ICICI Bank not made a party?  As such, inspection of the car by this Forum through an automobile engineer was out of question and in the absence of his report, it cannot be said there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle so as to corroborate the claim of the complainant for refund of value of the car in question or its replacement.

10.       OPs 1 & 2 had jointly stated the loan was taken and there was no defect in the vehicle and minor defects which were pointed out were cured and the present proceedings were launched after the matter was taken over by the ICICI Bank to the Hon’ble DRT, Chandigarh and the vehicle was likely to be impounded. It seems, the present proceedings were launched just to get rid of or to obtain an inconsistent order from this Forum, otherwise the complainant ought to have disclosed pendency of proceedings before the Hon’ble DRT, Chandigarh or even should have filed rejoinder and rebuttal evidence controverting the claim put forth in the written reply. However, the same was not filed and rather complainant failed to put in appearance, in person or through her counsel, on the last two dates i.e. 6.12.2019 and 4.2.2020, on which date the case was reserved after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the OPs. This shows, pleadings put forth in written reply and evidence furnished remains uncontroverted, unchallenged and un-impeached before this Forum. 

11.       Perusal of the record further shows, the vehicle has already run over 40000 kms. and it was driven for about two years and the present consumer complaint was filed when the proceedings were being launched or had been launched by the financier with whom the vehicle was hypothecated against the complainant. This further shows, had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would not have covered distance of more than 40000 kms. and the complainant would not have remained mum/silent for a period of about two years. The net result is, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 

12.       In view of above discussion, we find no merit in present consumer complaint.  Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

13.       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
10/02/2020		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg		Member	President