DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 58/2022

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service in selling defective car to the complainant.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Mahindra XUV 300, vehicle from OP1 after obtaining loan from the bank @ 8% p.a. on 25.11.2020 and after seeing the vehicle, he observed that one yellow circle sign is coming on display and thereafter he complained w.r.t. the issue to the service manager who assured that this sign would vanish of its own, however in July 2021 when a nut was coming down from the bonnet, he visited the service centre of OP1 again and told that one window sign and yellow circle sign is also coming which was shown to the manager earlier and he again informed that it will go when the vehicle will run on highway. There was also an issue of fog creation in fog light and front window of wiper and he was assured that after service that sign would vanish however this didn’t happen and even on 29.09.2021 he again went for fog light issue and he was informed by the OP1 that he has to create one video and only after seeing such video visual, they will do the needful and one of the technician with the OP1told that after re-generation yellow circle will go and it would cost Rs.350/- to which he agreed but in the evening he was informed that the said technician was busy in another work and told the complainant that vehicle will be given tomorrow and when he went to collect the vehicle on 30.09.2021, he was told that it will take another one day and the complainant had to pay Rs.77,982/-. The complainant then told OP1 that his vehicle is under warranty period, whereas the OP1 demanded Rs.50,000/- by stating that it is a manufacturing defect and this sign is coming from beginning.  It is further stated that this issue was seriously being informed to the Manager of OP1 but in order to cheat the complainant they demanded Rs.77,982/- which was subsequently reduced to Rs.50,000/-. However, since the vehicle was in the custody of OP1 at Muzzafarpur and OP1 was not returning the vehicle despite the vehicle was covered under warranty, and being frustrated from the conduct of OP1, he paid Rs.48500/- and got the vehicle and then he has filed the present complaint thereby claiming that OP be directed to refund the total cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.10,10,000/- along with interest @ 8% i.e. on which rate he took loan, and also claimed Rs.50,000/- towards frustration caused to him along with litigation charges.
2. The OPs were served but both the OPs did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.2023.
3. Complainant has filed his own ex-parte evience.
4. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. The complaint as drafted is too vague and not even a single document in original has been filed and the photocopies are not liable so that the contention of complainant be appreciated as to what exactly the fault was. Although, there are two reports of getting the vehicle serviced from the OP1 site at Muzzafarpur but those documents are not legible however the fact which can be understood from the complaint is that he purchased the vehicle in November, 2020 and had to visit the service centre upto September for three times i.e. in December 2020, July 2021 and September 2021  for getting the issue w.r.t. some yellow sign on the front display board and apart from this, nothing mere can be gathered. A slip of Rs.48,500/- that too photocopies was placed on record on 09.10.2021. This receipt also is not getting co-related as in the complaint he submits that he went to the OP on 29.09.2021 and OP demanded Rs.77,982/- on 01.10.2021. For what services this amount was paid is not clear as the job cards are not legible. Simultaneously it is also matter of record that Commission is not having the opportunity to hear the OP as they despite service have chosen to remain ex-parte and therefore the prima facie it can be believed that vehicle had some problem for which complainant despite having purchased a new car have to visit the OP thrice in 9 months i.e. in December 2020, July 2021 and September 2021. It can also be appreciated that no one purchases a new vehicle so as to cause disturbance and mental peace to the purchaser of a new car but the onus is still upon the complainant and he has to exactly prove as to what the exact defect was. For the first time he went only for getting the vehicle serviced, for the second time he again went only for the service of the car which is a normal process but what exact was the cause of yellow sign and for what the OP1 demanded Rs.77,982/- has not been explained by the complainant. Further, why complainant paid Rs.48,500/- is also not clear but since a receipt is on record that can be believed, OP being ex-parte. It is also matter of record that the vehicle is still with the complainant and he has not filed any application seeking opinion of the expert w.r.t. the defect in the car. Therefore, as far as OP2 is concerned i.e. the manufacturer, it cannot be held liable for replacing the car or for returning the entire amount for the car although he may be liable for the reason of employing inexperienced technicians at its service centre at Muzzafarpur. The vehicle was definitely in warranty and therefore charging of any amount for removing the ‘yellow sign’ as alleged to the extent of Rs.48,500/- apparently appears to be unfair trade practice on the part of OP1 as the vehicle was within the warranty period. In the totality of facts and circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that OP1 has charged Rs.48,500/- despite the vehicle was in warranty period and this amounts to unfair trade practice and accordingly deficiency in service by OP1 who is dealer of OP2, is liable along with the manufacturer. Therefore, the Commission hereby orders as follows:

• OPs are directed to refund jointly and severally an amount of Rs.48,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint.
• OPs are directed to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.12,500/- to the complainant along with litigation charges of Rs.7,500/-. 

This order be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with by OP, then OP, would pay interest @ 9% p.a. on all the above amounts from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. 

File be consigned to Record Room.    

Announced on 12.09.2024.