BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 494 of 2012
Date of instt.10.10.2012
Date of order: 19.02.2015
Krishan Lal son of Shri Puran Chand resident of village Jani tehsil and district Karnal. .
………Complainant.
Vs.
1.Malwa Carzone Pvt.Ltd. NH-1, 118/1 KM Stone, GT Road, Karnal (HR).
2.Nissan Motors India Private Limited, Plot No.1-A, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Mattur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram (District) 602105, Tamilnadu India.
………Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……….Member.
Present Sh.Jasbir Jani Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the OP no.1.
Sh.Vipin Singhania Advocate for the OP no.2.
ORDER:
The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that on 24.8.2012 the complainant had purchased a Car Micra DL XV of strong white colour bearing Engine No. E010336 chassis No. MDHFCUK13C8503501 having temporary No. HR99L2 Temp 6259 of Rs.5,91,721/- from the OP no.1 which was manufactured by the OP no.2. The said car was insured by the NIC Limited vide policy No.25332031126100001285 on the same day. After a few days it was noticed by the complainant that colour of the both doors of the driver side and back door of the conductor side as well as on quarter penal paint and running board the of the said car was defective. That after coming to know about the said defect, the complainant on 15.9.2012 visited the OP No. 1 and requested him to replace the said car as the same was within warranty period. The OP no.1 reported the matter to the OPno.2 but nothing was done which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Thus alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the said car with a new one and has sought the compensation for the harassment caused to him alongwith the litigation charges. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contents of the complaint alongwith some other documents.
2. On notice the OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint; and that the complainant has no cause of action.
On merits purchase of the car by the complainant from the OP no.1 has not been denied. It has been contended that there were some minor dots on some parts of the said car and there was no rust accumulating near the dots indicating to failure of paint material or poor workmanship. It might have appeared by plying the vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner on rough road, on which crusher (Barik Bajri) was lying by which the dots have occurred on such portion of the vehicle and the same was not covered under the warranty. However, the complainant can claim the compensation from the Insurance company in that respect. Thus, it has been contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP and dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
On notice the OP no.2 appeared and filed written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint.
On merits, it has been contended that subject damage was an express result of negligence and/or abuse and/ or external factors and as such not covered under manufacturer’s warranty.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
5. Therefore, after going the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops alleging deficiency in services on the ground that he purchased a car bearing Engine No. E010336 chassis No. MDHFCUK13C8503501 having temporary No. HR99L2 Temp 6259 for Rs.5,91,721/- from the OP no.1 which was manufactured by the OP no.2 and colour of the said car was defective one and he reported the matter to the OP no.1 within the warranty period and the OP no.1 reported the matter to the OP no.2 but the car was not replaced. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant has prayed for replacement of the said car as there was manufacturing defect in the colour of the said car. In support of his case the complainant has placed on the file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A and the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.
However, as per the contention of the Ops there was no defect in the said car and the complaint has been filed in an illegal manner. It was further contended that the dots which appeared in the colour were not on account of failure of paint material but the same were on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle due to which crusher (Barik Bajri) struck against the body of the said car and said dots appeared and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle or in the car.
The OP no.1 has placed on record affidavit Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP1/B and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/E.
The OP no.2 has also placed on record affidavit Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP2/A to Ex.OP2/E.
6. Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the complainant has not produced any mechanical report from an Automobiles Engineer/expert in order to infer that there was any defect in the vehicle or in the painting material. After going through the photographs placed on the file by both the parties it emerges that spots have appeared in the lower portion of the vehicle and they were just because of striking of small pieces of stones crusher against the body of the vehicle on account of fast driving of the said vehicle. There is absolutely no evidence in order to infer that there was any deficiency in the said paint. The complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act in order to prove that there was any defect in the said paint. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, we are inclined to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.
7. However, there are letters Ex.OP1/D and Ex.OP1/E from which it can be easily inferred that OP no.1 after consulting with the OP no.2 has agreed to redress the grievance of the complainant by way of good gesture. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the Ops to repaint the portion of the vehicle where paints have removed and thus the present complaint is disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present Sh.Jasbir Jani Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the OP no.1.
Sh.Vipin Singhania Advocate for the OP no.2.
Arguments heard. For orders, to come upon 19.2.2015.
Announced
18.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present Sh.Jasbir Jani Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the OP no.1.
Sh.Vipin Singhania Advocate for the OP no.2.
Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
19.02.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
