Haryana

Sonipat

CC/384/2015

Ramphal S/o Raghunath - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Mehar Kaushik

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.384 of 2015

                             Instituted on:12.10.2015

                             Date of order:29.07.2016

 

Ramphal son of Raghunath r/o village Mahra, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

                      Versus

 

1.PP Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Nirmal Motors Building, Meerut road, Karnal through its Branch-Bahalgarh road, Opp. Fazilpur Power House, Sonepat through its Authorized signatory.

2.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mahindra Towers, 3^rd Floor, Akurli road, Kandivali (E) Mumbai-400101 through its authorized signatory.

3.National Ins. Co. Ltd., Regd. Office SC 337-340, Sector 35B Chandigarh.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Ram Mehar Kaushik Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Ashok Pandit,Adv. for respondent no.1.

           Shri Gagan Gupta, Adv.for respondent no.2.

           Shri DS Malik, Adv.for respondent no.3.

         

BEFORE- NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        J.L. GUPTA, MEMBER.

       

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased a new vehicle Bolero from respondent no.1 on 21.8.2014 for Rsa.760224/- with two years warranty and the said vehicle was got financed through Indusind Bank and lateron the said vehicle was got registered vide Registration no.HR10X/2517.  The said vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 for the period 21.8.2014 to 20.8.2015.  But the said vehicle has started creating problem in tyre, AC, engine, junk in pillars.  The complainant approached the respondent no.1, but of no use.  The complainant has got checked the said vehicle from Another Company Apollo Tyres Panipat, who found that there are some technical/manufacturing fault in the said vehicle.  The complainant has requested the respondents either to replace the defective vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle, but of no use. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1,2 and 3 appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their separate reply.

         The respondent no.1 has made a statement before this Forum on 8.4.2016 that the reply which has been filed by respondent no.2, be also read & considered as reply on behalf of respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no previty of contract between the respondent no.2 and complainant.  The respondent no.2 is not responsible for any act, conduct or omission or commission by the dealer.   The complainant has never reported the defect in the AC.  The modulator in the engine has been replaced on 14.9.2015 and thereafter such problem was never reported.  The complainant was offered repaint for junk in pillar despite the fact that the same is not covered under warranty.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.2 as the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect. The other company i.e. Apollo has no right or authority to comment on the manufacturing of the vehicle.

         The respondent no.3 in its reply has submitted that no policy or cover note has been supplied to the respondent no.3 regarding the insurance of the vehicle. The complainant has not alleged any allegation against the respondent no.3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 as the complainant has no grievances with the respondent no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

 

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents no.1 and 2 have supplied the defective vehicle to the complainant because the same is having manufacturing defects and the same are unrepairable.

 

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that there is no previty of contract between the respondent no.2 and complainant.  The respondent no.2 is not responsible for any act, conduct or omission or commission by the dealer.   The complainant has never reported the defect in the AC.  The modulator in the engine has been replaced on 14.9.2015 and thereafter such problem was never reported.  The complainant was offered repaint for junk in pillar despite the fact that the same is not covered under warranty.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.2 as the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect. The other company i.e. Apollo has no right or authority to comment on the manufacturing of the vehicle.

         During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the document marked as JN-A i.e. inspection report issued by Shiv Darshan Automobile Israna and in this document, it is mentioned that the car is defective having rust on cowl top and welding joints, vibration in steering, abnormal noise from right hand side, abnormal sound from tyre and suspension, water leakage from AC blower in the front side.

 

         We have perused the above said inspection report very carefully.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that the said automobile has no where mentioned that these are manufacturing defects and are unrepairable.  Whereas the main intention of the complainant by way of filing the present complaint is to get replaced his old/used vehicle with new one.  But this cannot be allowed until and unless it is proved that the vehicle is having manufacturing defects and the said manufacturing defects are unrepairable. So, merely on the report marked as JN-A, no directions regarding replacement of the vehicle with new one or refund of the entire cost of the vehicle cannot be given. However, in the interest of justice and taking into consideration the report marked as JN-A, we hereby direct the respondent to get repair vibration in steering, abnormal noise from right hand side, abnormal sound from tyre and suspension, water leakage from AC blower in the front side, at its own or from their authorized service station without any cost of repair from the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands partly allowed qua respondent no.2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 3.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)(J.L.Gupta-Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

                                           DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:29.07.2016