Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1694/2015

Rajeshwar Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Bhushan Kumar Garg

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  1694

                                                Instituted on:    18.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       23.08.2016

Rajeshwar Chaudhary (Chairman Press Trust Punjab) son of Shri Shiv Sant Kumar C/O Parkash Commercial College, Railway Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. ASV Ramana Towers, 52, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017 Tamilnadu through its Managing Director.

2.             HRBM Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Managing Director/General Manager (Authorised Dealer of Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd.)

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.

For OPs                    :                Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shri Rajeshwar Chaudhary, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Datsun Go plus car bearing registration number PB-13-AP-3891 from OP number 2 on 28.5.2015 and at that time the complainant was accompanied with his father Shri Shiv Sant Kumar and his friend Mr. Amandeep Garg at the time of its purchase. It is further stated that at the time of delivery of the car, the complainant was assured by the Op number 2 that the car is already filled with 5 litres petrol and the average of the car is 20 KM per litre, as such the complainant  need not to fill the petrol upto 100Kms. It is further averred that the agency of the Op number 1 is situated at Patiala Road Village Bhindra and the complainant belongs to Dhuri City, which is about 30 Kms and at the time of delivery of the car, the meter reading was at zero and the complainant was under the impression that the car is already having 5 litres petrol.  It is further averred that when the complainant was coming to Dhuri via Sangrur and when reached near Prince Villie Benra, the car stopped and did not restart and the complainant immediately made a call to OP number 2 and the employees of OP 2 come after one hour at the spot as there was no petrol in the car.  Thus, the complainant has alleged that due to this illegal act and conduct of the OP number 2, the complainant suffered a lot in the shape of harassment, mental agony and harassment.   It is further averred that due to this act of the OP number 2, the complainant suffered a lot of harassment and mental tension and as such, the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and further to pay litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is totally false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature, that the complainant has concealed the material facts and the present complaint is a clear cut case of misuse of the Consumer Protection Act, that the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and that the complainant has failed to set up nexus between the damages claim in the present complaint and the damages suffered by him.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question, however, it is denied that the complainant was accompanied by his father and his friend Amandeep Garg.  It is further denied that it was assured to the complainant that the car in question is filled with five litre petrol. However, as per the norms of the company, the average of the car is 20.6 KM per litre subject to the terms and conditions.  It is pertinent to mention here that when the vehicle arrives the ops, it is filled with 2 litre petrol in order to PDI (pre delivery inspection), road test approximate 2 KM, to check the road noise level, washing the vehicle body, park the vehicle in stock yard and thereafter the customer finalize the car to purchase and then the vehicle again sent for washing and then send for second PDI before delivery and then the vehicle is taken to delivery way of showroom and in whole process around 5-6 KM is consumed and remaining fuel of tank is used by the customer to take the vehicle nearby filling station to further fill the petrol/fuel. The nearby filling station i.e. Balaji Filling Station is about 200 meter from the showroom. The complainant was apprised about the said facts by the official of the OPs. It is specifically stated that the complainant has concocted a false story about giving of 5 litre of petrol at the time of delivery of the car in question.

 

3.             The complainant has also filed the replication whereby denying the allegations of the OPs and reiterating the averments in the complaint.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Shiv Sant Kumar, Ex.C-3 affidavit of Amandeep Garg, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-9 copy of complaint, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-14 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-15 copy of press ID proof and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.Op-1 affidavit, Ex.OP2 check list, Ex.OP-3 copy of book let, Ex.OP-4 copy of book let, Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-9 photographs and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             In the present case, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased a new car model Datsun Go plus on 28.5.2015 from the OP number 2.

 

7.             Now, the grievance of the complainant is that  at the time of delivery of the car in question, it was assured by Op number 2 that the car is already filled with five litre petrol and the average of the car is 20 KM per litre of petrol, meaning thereby the car should run for 100 KMs with that petrol of five litres already filled in the car, whereas the case of the complainant is that the car in question stopped only after running 30 KMs away from the agency of the OP number 2.  Whereas on the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has vehemently denied that the complainant was ever promised/stated that the car in question is having five litres petrol therein, whereas the stand of the Op number 2 is that the car in question was having only two litre petrol in order to PDI, road test approx. 2 KM and to check the road noise level etc. 

 

8.             To support his contention, the complainant has also relied upon his affidavit Ex.C-1 to show that the OP number 2 assured the complainant that the car in question is already filled with five litre petrol and further this fact is corroborated by the affidavits of Sarvshri Shiv Sant Kumar and Amandeep Kumar, which are on record as Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3.  Ex.C-4 is the copy of the legal notice dated 9.7.2015 served upon the OPs and Ex.C-5 to Ex.C8 are the copies of the postal receipts.  On the other hand, the OPs have produced only the affidavit of one Shakti Singh, General Manager, HRBM Nissan denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  But, the Ops have not produced any sworn affidavit of the concerned official to deny the allegations of the complainant, who delivered the car in question to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that if a person purchases the new car and it stops on the way due to less quantity of petrol, which the Op number 2 was  to put in the fuel box, it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2, more so when, the Op number 2 has failed to produce any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support the contention that only two litres petrol was there in the fuel tank of the car.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

10                    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 23, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                            (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member