Punjab

Sangrur

CC/516/2014

IQBALJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

NISSAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI SATNAM SINGH

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  516

                                                Instituted on:    04.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       05.03.2015

 

Iqbaljit Singh Punia son of S. Karnail Singh, resident of Punia Colony, Near Railway Bridge, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. ASV Raman Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar-600 017 Chennai, Tamilnadu.

2.     HRBM Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (authorised dealer of Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd.) Village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur 148 001.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Akash Seth, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Iqbaljit Singh Punia, 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 one Nissan Terrano XL car bearing chassis number MDHHSNAW5E1006303 and engine number E054605 from OP number 2 on 21.2.2014 by paying the total amount of Rs.11,02,563/- and OP number 2 issued bill and delivery challan for the same.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that after one month of its purchase, the vehicle in question started giving serious problems like the car broke down suddenly in the middle of the road or the electronic system of the car stopped working, as such, the complainant approached the OP number 2, but OP number 2 turned down all the requests of the complainant by saying that it is a routine matter and gave him a false assurance that within a day or two, executive of the OP number 2 would deliver his car to his home after removing all the defects.  It is further averred that on 14.4.2014, the car in question broke down in the middle of the road in the main market and came smoke from its bonnet, as such the complainant again contacted OP number 2, who assured that the car would be checked and advised to take the delivery of the vehicle after 2 days.  It is further averred that after a period of 3-4 days the complainant contacted OP number 2 to get the vehicle and got the same from Op number 2 with an assurance that there will be no problem in future.  It is further stated that after a gap of about two months on 17.6.2014, the car again started giving serious problems in its working and stated that the electronic system of the car broke down, then the engine of the car stopped working and as such the complainant contacted OP number 2, who towed the car to its service station. OP number 2 issued a job sheet to this effect and got the vehicle after 3-4 days.  Thereafter on 16.7.2014, the same defects arose in the car and the vehicle stopped working, as such, he approached OP number 2, again officials of the OP number 2 came and towed the car to the workshop, but no job order was issued. It is stated that the vehicle is in the custody of OP number 2 since 16.7.2014. It is further stated that the OPs have supplied the defective vehicle to the complainant which is suffering some manufacturing defects.  It is further stared that the complainant is an agriculturist and also doing the real estate business, the consumer has to face the loss of huge damages since all the business transactions of the complainant has been badly effected. It is further averred that a legal notice dated 14.8.2014 was also served upon the OPs through his counsel Shri Satnam Singh Kler, Adv. OP number 2 in its reply dated 28.8.2014 tried to shift the burden on the complainant and concealed the true facts.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the cost of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs for causing mental torture, inconvenience and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, that the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious, and that the complainant is neither having an expertise nor is an automotive expert to state that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  On merits, it is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant and the alleged problem of the ignition in car was duly redressed by the OP number 2.   It is stated that OP number 2 is in no way liable nor responsible as the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the vehicle of the complainant was having ignition problem and the same was replaced for free of cost by the OPs and the car was tested OK by the engineer of the OPs. It is the mistake of the complainant that instead of taking the delivery of the car he is filing such a frivolous and groundless complaint only and only to misconceive the Forum and to make wrongful gain for him at the cost of the OP.  The complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to support this allegation of manufacturing defect. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the ground that the complaint is frivolous and vexation, that the complainant is himself guilty for his own act and conduct for not taking the delivery of the car despite the repeated requests and personal visits of the OPs.  The OP number 2 vide its reply dated 28.8.2014 again asked the complainant to get the delivery of the car, but despite that the complainant did not take the delivery of the car. Apart from that the OP is also entitled to get the parking charges @ Rs.200/- per day w.e.f. 28.8.2014.   It is stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question.  It is further stated that on 14.4.2014, the vehicle was received in off condition and after checking it was found that there is a problem in self of the car and accordingly on the same day in the self was changed and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in satisfactory condition.  Thereafter on 17.6.2014 the vehicle was again received with the similar complaint and the self was replaced free of cost.  On 26.6.2014, the complainant visited the OP for the free service at 10,000 KMs and the same was done to the satisfaction of the complainant.  On 17.7.2014 the vehicle was again received with off condition, as such the OP immediately informed the problem to OP number 1 and the engineer of the OP number 1 visited and checked the vehicle and found that there is a problem in the ignition of the car, which leads to cause problem in starting of the vehicle. It was further told by the OP number 1 that the said part is not available in India and it will be imported from Japan and the complainant was informed about the same, thereafter the part in question was imported and fitted in the vehicle.  After repairing of the vehicle, the complainant was immediately informed to take the delivery, but the complainant flatly refused to take the delivery of the car and the vehicle is free from any defect and as such there is no manufacturing defect.  It is stated further that if the complainant did not take the delivery of the car and the car remained parked then it will further cause consequential loss to the car i.e.  fuel injector, battery, tyres, normal wear and tear and other part of the car.  Apart from that the OP is also entitled to get the parking charges @ Rs.200/- per day w.e.f. 28.8.2014.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of delivery challan, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 postal receipts, Ex.C-6 reply dated 28.8.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit along with Annexure 1,2 and 3 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4 copies of job cards, Ex.OP2/5 copy of bill, Ex.OP2/6 copy of service coupon, Ex.OP2/7 copy of job card, Ex.OP2/8 copy of cheque list, Ex.OP2/9 copy of washing check list, Ex.Op2/10 to Ex.OP2/11 copies of bills, Ex.OP2/12 copy of emails, Ex.Op2/13 copy of emails, Ex.Op2/14 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP2/15 copy of courier slip, Ex.OP2/16 copy of bill, Ex.OP2/17 copy of invoice, Ex.OP2/18 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/19 copy of postal receipt, Ex.Op2/20 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons. 

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for Rs.11,02,563/- from OP number 2 vide delivery challan dated 21.02.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question has been manufactured by Op number 2.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the vehicle in question supplied to the complainant by the OPs is defective one and is having manufacturing defect due to which its engine broke down in the middle of the road firstly on 14.4.2014 and on 17.6.2014 and 16.7.2014 and smoke also came out from the bonnet of the vehicle in question at least for two times.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that since the same problem arose in the vehicle three times, but the Ops failed to rectify the same, as such there is possibility of manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since there was ignition problem in the car and without it, even the car cannot start and run.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the car in question was defective one, as such, the Ops are liable to refund the cost of the car to the complainant along with interest and compensation.

 

9.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the complainant has filed a false complaint as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further contended by the learned counsel for OPs that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as whenever the complainant complained any problem in the vehicle, the same was immediately attended and rectified/removed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  It is contended by the learned counsel for OP number 2 that the complainant came to the OP number 2 on 17.7.2014 with the vehicle in off condition, then the same problem was informed to OP number 1 and the engineer of the OP number 1 visited the workshop of OP number 2 on 25.7.2014 and checked the vehicle and found that there was a problem in the ignition of the car, which leads to cause problem in starting the vehicle.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 2 that since the said part was not available in India, then same was imported from Japan and as soon as the part came from Japan and the said part was provided by Op number 1 on 25.8.2014 to the OP number 2 and vehicle was made in the working order and the complainant was advised to take the delivery of the vehicle vide letter dated 28.8.2014, but the complainant never turned up for the same.  As such, any deficiency in question on the part of the Op number 2 has been denied.

 

10.           We have perused the whole of the case file very carefully and found that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question supplied by OP number 2 to the complainant. The fact remains that there was only one problem i.e ignition problem which arose in the vehicle firstly on 14.4.2014 and thereafter it arose on 17.6.2014 and 16.7.2014. There was no other defect in the vehicle.  It is worth mentioning here that since 16.7.2014 the vehicle is standing in the workshop of OP number 2 and the complainant even did not take the delivery back of the vehicle despite the request of the OP number 2 vide its letter dated 28.8.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP2/18. In this letter Ex.Op2/18, it is clearly mentioned that “we would like to inform you that after diagnosis we order the parts and the same has been received and replaced in your vehicle under warranty. Now your vehicle is ok so we would request to take the delivery of your vehicle TERRANO.”.  But, it is the complainant, who did not approach the Op number 2 for getting the delivery of the vehicle in question nor checked the vehicle by visiting to the workshop of OP number 2, where the vehicle in question was standing.   

 

11.           Further the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of any expert to show that the problem of ignition is a manufacturing defect. It is true that if there is any ignition problem then the vehicle cannot start and run, but at the same time it cannot be said that there is manufacturing problem in the vehicle in question.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce expert opinion of expert on the file to show that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect.  On the other hand, Ex.OP2/20 is the affidavit of one Fulkit Giri, technician of OP number 2, who has clearly stated that the vehicle in question was having problem of ignition switch and starter motor and the same was replaced by him and after the replacement of said parts, the car was in OK and in working condition.   In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the OPs took every steps in removing the defects in the vehicle and as such, no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs can be held.  

 

12.           Further the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended that OP number 2 is entitled to get parking charges @ Rs.200/- per day from the complainant from 28.8.2014 till the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.  But, we are unable to pass any such order as there is no agreement on record between the parties for the same.  However, the OP number 2 can seek separate remedy, if any, for charging of the same from the complainant.

13.           In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member