BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 47 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 7.4.2014.
Date of Decision : 9.9.2016.
Satnam Singh aged 30 years son of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, resident of village Kariwala, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Sh. Pankaj Narula, Executive Officer (Service), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon- 122015.
2. Authorized Dealer, Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.P. Toksia, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Car from opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.three lacs on 6.4.2012. After purchase of said car, within few days the said car started to create problem in its starting upon which complainant approached to op no.2 who told that it is a minor problem and its mechanic will remove the said problem and then car was repaired. After some time, the colour of the car faded and the whole body of the car covered with stains. The complainant approached the op no.2 and lodged complaint in this regard but op no.2 did not hear him and started to put off the matter by saying that this is not a manufacturing defect, hence they cannot do anything in this regard. When the complainant stated to op no.2 that due to fade of colour, the car looks very ugly and they should replace the same with new one, then op no.2 misbehaved with him. The complainant got served a legal notice upon ops but to no effect and ops have flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the car and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for harassment etc. besides litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing written statement asserting therein that vehicle given to the complainant was brand new and he had taken the delivery of said vehicle after inspecting and satisfying himself. It is denied that the paint of the vehicle faded and the complainant pointed out the alleged problem to the dealer. The complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of authorized dealer for obtaining warranty service as undertaken under the warranty document. He never pointed out the alleged defect to any dealer during the warranty period. The paint process of vehicle is unique which is followed by the reputed automobiles manufacturer across the world. Under the said process the vehicles pass through various stages. The car in question was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering op where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots and due process in this regard was adopted.
3. Op no.2 in its separate written statement has averred that after comparative studies the complainant selected car brand Alto LX BSIV and as such he purchased the car on 6.4.2012. After pre delivery inspection the car was handed over to the complainant. The complainant has enjoyed the free services provided by the manufacturer after sale. Under warranty period and in course of services rear shock absorver was replaced under warrantee. The complainant also enjoyed the other regular services but he never made any complaint regarding fading of colour of car. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. By way of evidence, the complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3. Whereas, ops have placed on file affidavit Ex.R1, dealership agreement Ex.R2, warranty policy Ex.R3, affidavit of Raj Kumar Goyal authorized signatory of op no.2 Ex.R4, reply to notice Ex.R5, copy of postal receipt Ex.R6 and vehicle history Ex.R7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant got conducted free services of his car from opposite party no.2 i.e. on 18.8.2012, 26.1.2013, 18.2.2013 and on 22.3.2013 after purchase of car on 6.4.2012 as is evident from vehicle history Ex.R7 placed on file by opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that after some time of purchase of car, its colour faded and whole body of car covered with stains. But during the period of above said services, the complainant has not made this type of complaint to the opposite parties. The complainant has not placed on file any mechanical report/ expert opinion on the case file that colour of the car has been faded and same is due to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Even the photographs of the car have not been placed on file to prove the said fact. The complainant got served legal notice upon the ops on 25.4.2013 and prior to it there is nothing on record that he ever made any complaint regarding colour of the car to the ops. The car in question was purchased on 6.4.2012 and present complaint has been filed on 7.4.2014 i.e. after two years of limitation.
7. Thus, from all angles, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:9.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
