Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/499/2013

Amit Kumar S/o Rihi Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oberoi Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

K.B.Mehta

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

 BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 499 of 2013

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 09.07.2013

                                                                                    Date of Decision: 04.08.2017.

 

 Amit Kumar S/o Shri Rihi Pal, aged about 28 years, resident of village Gobindpura, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Oberoi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Near Aggarsain Chowk, Jagadhri-135003 through its Manager.

 

2. Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd. 1^st Floor, Plot No.15 Sector 32, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                  …Respondents.

 

      BEFORE:             SH. DHARAM PAL …………..……….. PRESIDENT.

                                  SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                                  SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER

 

 

Present:           Shri KB Mehta, Advocate for complainant.

                       Shri Rohit Arya, Advocate for OP No.1

                                   Shri KK Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2

 

ORDER            (DHARAM PAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant Amit Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against respondents (herein after Respondents will be referred as OPs).  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that one Shri Girish Gupta, Director C Lal Mkt. Pvt. Railway Road, Near Khera, Ambala City had original purchased a car bearing No.HR01-AD-8361, make Chevrolet beat, Model 2011, bearing Engine No.10AB5Z112970138, Chassis No.MA6BKNBBT078828. Lateron the complainant purchased the aforesaid car through City car Bazar, Opp. DAV Girls College Yamuna Nagar on 22.03.2013. On the aforesaid car, the OP had given warranty on the engine for 1 lac kilometer. However, the said car so far ran approx. upto 52000 kilometer but contrary to the warranty and assurances given by the OPs, the said engine of the aforesaid car was blocked. On 27.05.2013, when complainant was going for his personal work, the aforesaid car suddenly stopped at Khizrabad, when complainant was on way. The complainant tried his best to start the aforesaid car but the said car did not start again despite best efforts on the part of the complainant, then feeling constrained, the complainant hired a vehicle and touched the aforesaid vehicle and took it to the OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of OP No.2.  After checking the aforesaid defective car, the OP No.1 told the complainant that the defect of the said car can be removed but for this the complainant must have to pay charges for the same. On this, the complainant requested the OP No.1 that the said car is in warranty period,  because on the said engine,  the OPs have given warranty of 1lac kilometer whereas, the said car only has run about 52000 km so the complainant requested the OPs to repair the said car without getting any charges within warranty period. But OP No.1 flatly refused to repair the defective engine of the said car which was in warranty period so the same can be repaired without getting any charges. But despite all this the OP No.1 flatly refused to do the same and a registered AD Legal notice dated 14.06.2013 was issued by the complainant on 15.06.2013 through his counsel but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon  notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement separately OP No.1 took some preliminary objections such as complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has not complied with the terms of warranty; complainant has suppressed the true and material facts and has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Forum and on merit it is stated that the car has not been delivered by the OP No.1, so the question of warranty on the engine by the OP No.1 does not arise and moreover the warranty is given by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. It is also incorrect that the engine of the car was blocked due to any fault of the engine. The complainant has himself violated the terms of the policy. It is submitted that the complainant brought the car to the premises of answering OP No.1  on 27.05.2013  and the OP No.1 being a dealer of Chevrolet Automobiles  India Pvt. Ltd. took all due care of the complainant and his car and located the problem and told him that car of the complainant had already met with a severe accident and in that accident the engine of his vehicle was already damaged and repaired by Vat Motors, Bareilly on 21.06.2012 when the car again met with an accident, the OP No.1 immediately as a goodwill gesture raised a request mail to Chevrolet India and the company offered 25% on the service and spares which was done as a goodwill gesture and a good business policy of the OP but the complainant not turned up since then and have neither removed his vehicle parked in the premises of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 has already been suffering due to shortage of space in its premises and the parking of the car is causing inconvenience because the complainant in spite of repeated requests of the OP No.1 is neither willing to get his vehicle repaired or removed the vehicle from the premises of the OP No.1. The OP No.1 again wish to inform the complainant that as the engine of his car was damaged in the accident and the same was dismantled and repaired by Vat Motors Bareilly so the company has not instructed the OP to give free service to the complainant. The OP is duty bound by the terms of warranty  given by the company to the complainant and can only offer free services after permission  from Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd. But as Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd. has offered only 25% discount so the OP No.1 is bound by the company policy. The details have already been given in Para No.6 above and as the front side major accidental repair has been performed on the vehicle of the complainant so the Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd. has refused to offer his totally free repair service and as the major repair on the vehicle has already been performed so as per the warranty policy the Chevrolet India Pvt. Ltd. has refused the OP No.1 to offer total free service on the vehicle of the complainant. However, the complainant was requested either to remove the vehicle from the premises of the OP No.1 or get the vehicle repaired from the OP after paying the due charges or in case after receipt of 15 days of the notice the vehicle is not removed, the OP shall be entitled Rs.250/- per day as parking charges from the complainant. The notice was received by the OP and was duly replied to the complainant in which also the OP had requested the complainant to get his vehicle repaired or to remove the vehicle from the premises of the OP but the complainant has filed this false complaint and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the instant complaint against the answering OP; this forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint and on merit it is stated that contents regarding Girish Gupta being the original purchaser of the vehicle in question and later getting the vehicle registered vide registration No.HR01-AD-8361 is matter of record and proof. Let the complainant be put strict documentary proof. The contents regarding complainant having purchased the vehicle in question from Girish Gupta on 22.03.2013 is matter of record and proof. The answering OP sells the vehicle with warranty of 3 years or 1 lakh KM (which ever comes earlier) from the date of delivery by a Chevrolet retailer or the date of first registration of the motor vehicle, which ever occurred first. At the time of purchase of the machinery by the complainant, the warranty card  along with conditions were handed over to the complainant and the complainant purchased the machinery after admitting/warranty booklet with respect to subject vehicle, a standard warranty is provided to the customer. The complainant by accepting the warranty terms and conditions opted to get the vehicle serviced twice by availing the free service coupon from the booklet. That after going through the vehicle history, it came to the knowledge that the vehicle history, it came to the knowledge that the vehicle in question has suffered a major accident loss occurred on 10.11.2012 and again on 20.02.2013. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect.

5.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X, Legal notice dated 14.06.2013 as Annexure C-1, original post card as Annexure C-2, receipt regarding received registration papers as Annexure C-3, photocopy of RC as Annexure C-4, photocopy of RC and NOC as Annexure C-5, photocopy of insurance cover note as Annexure C-6, postal receipt as Annexure C-7 and C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities and his evidence was closed by Court order on 14.06.2017.

7.                     Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 appeared and tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Vivek Singh as Annexure R2/A, photocopy of service details as Annexure R2/1, printout of owner’s Manual as Annexure R2/2, photocopy of reply to the Legal notice dated 14.06.2013 as Annexure R2/3, photocopy of courier receipt as Annexure R2/4, photocopy of retail invoice dated 16.12.2013 as Annexure R2/5, photocopy of job sheet as Annexure R2/6, photocopy of rejection for repairing work due to certain reason dated 03.06.2013 as Annexure R2/7, print out of delivery receipt as Annexure R2/8, print out of vehicle history card as Annexure R2/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for Opposite party and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     The complainant had purchased the car bearing No.HR01-AD-8361 make Chevrolet Beat Model 2011 from Girish Gupta on 22.03.2013. The complainant has alleged that the engine of the above said car was blocked on 27.05.2013 when he was going for his personal work at Khizrabad. The complainant requested the OP No.1 that the said car is within the warranty as the warranty of the above said car was 1 lac KM, whereas the said car has only run about 52000 KM. The complainant requested the OPs to repair the said car without getting any charges within the warranty period. From the perusal of the documents available in the file, it reveals that the complainant has placed on record the insurance cover note (Annexure C-6) and registration certificate of the above said car which is in the name of Girish Gupta. The complainant has not placed any documents to prove that he is owner of the above said card. There is no privity of the contract or relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the parties. The complainant cannot be a consumer within a meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 04.08.2017.

 

                                                                           (DHARAM PAL)

                                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                            DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

 

            (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)             (S.C.SHARMA)

              MEMBER                                            MEMBER

 

Note:    Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                                            (DHARAM PAL)

                                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                                            DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR