Haryana

Ambala

CC/371/2012

GURMAIL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PASCO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ KUMAR

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No. : 371 of 2012

Date of Institution      : 30.11.2012

Date of Decision       :  17.12.2015

 

Gurmail Singh son of Sh. Baljeet Singh R/o Village Bartholi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                                                                                   ……Complainant.

 

                                                                                            Versus

1. Pasco Motors, NH-73, Ambala-Jagadhari Road, Opp. Gurudwara, Dosarka, District Ambala through its Manager.
2. Tata Motors Company Limited, Gazipur, Patpargunj, New Delhi through its M.D.

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:    SH.A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh. Rohit Kumar, Adv.  counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. P.K. Goel,  Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, Adv. counsel for OP No.2.

ORDER.

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased Tata Super ACE 2380 WB Vehicle for a sum of Rs.4,05,000/- from Op No.1 on 28.08.2012 vide invoice No.7496 and the said vehicle was got financed  from Indusind Bank Ltd. through OP No.1.  After 2-3 days of its purchase, the vehicle started problems in engine and in the month of September 2012, the complainant visited the  office of OP No.1 where on checking the vehicle, mechanic told that there is some problem of Tarbo Charger which will be rectified within 1-2 days but after 2-3 days, complainant alongwith his driver again approached the OP No.1 where he handed over a letter to him in favour of Manager, Pasco Motors, Chandigarh and directed to get it replaced from Chandigarh. Accordingly, complainant went to the agency at Chandigarh and got replaced the said Tarbo  with new one. After some time the problem again occurred and he contacted the OP No.1 where he did not bother and as such,  a legal notice dated 19.10.2012 was served upon the OP No.1 but of no avail.  Hence, the complainant having  no alternative preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para. 

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel  and filed written statement separately. OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and no locus standi. On merits, it has been urged that there is no defect in the vehicle as alleged since there is no report of expert person on the file.  However,  the  answering OP never refused to provide services as per terms & conditions  of the warranty applicable to the vehicle and the complainant after satisfying himself  took the delivery of the said vehicle. Thus the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

                   OP No.2-company filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint as the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and relation between the Ops are on Principal to Principal basis. On merits, it has been urged that in the month of September, complainant reported the problem and on inspection, it was found that there was some problem  in Tarbo Charger. As per warranty, the same was duly replaced.  Since, there was no defect in the vehicle, the question of replacement of the vehicle does not arise at all. In the end, prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs has been made.

3.                To prove  his case, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, authorized official  of Agency as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-7 and closed the evidence but counsel for OP No.2 suffered a statement  that he does not want to lead any evidence except  written statement already  tendered in this case which may kindly be read in his evidence.

4.                We have heard Learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question  purchased by him from Ops remained defective time & again  and despite repeated visits & requests to the Ops, vehicle in dispute neither repaired properly nor replaced nor its cost was returned.  As such, the complainant has prayed that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to him besides committing unfair trade practice with him.

                   On the other hand, counsel for Ops argued that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect and as & when complainant brought the vehicle for its service or for removing any defect, it was treated with utmost care and repaired/ serviced to the satisfaction of the complainant.

5.                After hearing both the parties and considering the facts & records of the present case, it is admitted fact on record that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide documents (Annexures C-6 to C-9).  Further as per job sheets dated 29.09.2012 and 18.10.2012 respectively (Annexures R-1 & R-3), it reveals that the vehicle was having Tarbo Charger problem which was not properly rectified  by the Ops till 27.11.2013, the date on which  Sh. Pawan Kumar authorized representative of OP No.1 tendered a statement on oath before the Forum that the vehicle of the complainant is lying defective in their workshop since last fifteen days and parts of the vehicle  had already been replaced twicely due to defects in its engine and now they are again ready to replace the defective  parts of the vehicle if the same are made available by the OP No.2 company to them during the warranty period. Thus the version of the Ops  that the vehicle is not having any defect is not tenable as they failed to rectify the defects from the vehicle in question upto the satisfaction of the complainant and also failed to file any affidavit of service Engineer/Technical Person of the company regarding no any defects in the vehicle whereby  the version of Ops can be believed.  Further, it is not disputed that the vehicle became defective within its warranty period and Ops failed to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant.  Besides it, the stand taken  by OP No.2 that he is not liable for any deficiency in service of OP No.1 since the relationship between him and OP No.1 is principal to principal basis  is having no effect in the case of complainant as the complainant is nowhere a party to the agreement, if any, executed between OP No.1 & OP No.2 in this regard though not placed on the court file by OP No.2.  So,  in these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant and are bound to rectify the defects in the  vehicle in question as per warranty provided at the time of sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant.  However,  during the proceedings of the case, complainant  stated on oath on 21.01.2014 that the vehicle which was  dropped in workshop of complainant due to defects in the vehicle has been rectified by them on 10.01.2014 after retaining the same about 2 months at their workshop and vehicle  is running smoothly now.

                   In view of the facts discussed above, we hold that the vehicle in question  remained withheld in the workshop of OP No.1 due to  non-supplying  of parts by OP No.2 during the warranty period as clearly stated by OP No.1’s representative on oath before the Forum which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part  of OP No.2 for which OP No.2 is liable  to compensate the complainant. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to complainant on account of compensation and punitive damages for delay in rectification of vehicle in question.
2. Also to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation costs etc.

                   Further the award/directions issued above must be complied with by the Op No.2 within the stipulated period otherwise the awarded amounts shall fetch simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED:17.12.2015                                             Sd/-

                                                                            (A.K. SARDANA)

    PRESIDENT                 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       MEMBER