Haryana

StateCommission

A/916/2016

AZAD SINGH PANWAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PASCO AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

KETAN ANTIL

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                       

First Appeal No.    916 of 2016

Date of Institution:  03.10.2016

Date of Decision:    03.11.2016

 

 

Azad Singh Panwar son of Sukhpal Singh Panwar, resident of H.No.E-3, University Campus, DCRUST Murthal, District Sonepat.

 

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Pasco Automobiles, Pasco House No.6, Industrial Estate, Old Delhi-Gurgaon road, Gurgaon-122015, through its Manager.

 

2.      M/s Jagmohan Motors Limited, Delhi road Sonepat through its Manager.

 

3.      M/s Murthal Auto (P) Limited Plot No.44, HSIIDC, District Sonepat through its Manager.

 

4.      M/s Maruti Sales and service, C-119, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-28, through its Manager.

 

5.      M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Head Office, 1 Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70, through its General Manager (Sales).

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Ketan Antil, Advocate for the appellant.

                            

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby M/s Murthal Auto (P) Limited, M/s Maruti Sales and Service and M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited-opposite parties No.3 to 5 were directed to pay Rs.1 lac in lump sum to Azad Singh Panwar-complainant on account of rendering deficient services and litigation expenses.

2.      On October 04^th, 2011, complainant purchased a car for Rs.5,11,000/- from M/s Pasco Automobiles-opposite party No.1. After sometime, the complainant noticed a few defects in the car. The complainant requested the opposite parties to remove the defects but to no avail. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The respondents No.1 and 2 in their written version denied the averments of the complaint and stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the car.

4.      The respondents No.4 and 5 in their written version pleaded that their liability being the manufacturer of the car was limited only to provide warranty benefits as per Clause 3 of the Warranty Policy. On July 15^th, 2012, the complainant reported the problem of high consumption of engine oil and turbo noise. The oil filter of the car was replaced. The engine of the car was inspected and found to be OK. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant was insisting for the replacement of car with the new one.

5.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal seeking replacement of car with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.5,11,000/- and to pay Rs.3 lacs as compensation.

6.      Indisputably, the complainant purchased the car from respondent No.1 for Rs.5,11,000/- on October 04^th, 2011. The car has already run 16787 K.M. upto October 17^th, 2013. The question which arises is as to whether the manufacturing company and its dealer was under any compulsion to replace the car itself when certain noises allegedly emanating from the engine of the car. An engine operating on diesel makes a rattling noise which does not occur in petrol driven engine. The car in question is also having an engine operating on diesel. Apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine, there was no other major defect was pointed out by the complainant. No evidence was led by the complainant to prove that defects pointed were not repairable. Even before this Commission no defect could be pointed out except that he visited the workshop number of times.  Thus, the order passed by the District Form is perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.    

 

  

Announced 03.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President