Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/176/2013

Sri Anajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rahul Kumar Singh, Proprietor Yesraj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar , Sri Treta Kumar Dubey & Rupesh Kumar Shendilya

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                            District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

          Complain Case No. –176/2013

  Sri – Anajay Kumar, S/o Sri Jawahar Singh, village-Annat Kamtaul, P.S.-Kudni, District -  Muzaffarpur.……………….………………… Complainants 

V/s

1. Rahul Kumar Singh, S/o Niteshwar Prasad Singh, Proprietor Yesraj Motors, Bibiganj, P.S- Brahampura, District Muzaffarpur
2.   Karl Slim  proprietor S/o known, Managing Director,  Tata Motors, 1 Indiabul Centre Tower 2 and  B 20^th  floor senpati Baptmarg Jupitor Mils Compound Aliphilsan road, West Mumbai- 400013  …..................................................................................opposite parties.

Date of order- 07-01-2016

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                        President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

                   Member

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

For complainants- Sri Sudhir Kumar Pathak,  Sunil Kumar, Sri Treta Kumar  

          Dubey,  Rupesh Kumar Shendilya –advocates

For opposite party- Sri Nawal Kishor Goswami- advocate

 

 

Order

           

            The complainant has filed this case of his claim on 28-10-2013 for claim of his Rs. 2,55,000/- including the value of  vehicle Tata NanoCar BR-06AB6094 Rs. 1,85,000/- he has further claim for Rs. 10,000/- of insurance,  Rs. 50,000/- for his mental, harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.

            The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit arises from para-4 as mentioned that the opposite party no.-2 has manufacturer of  the vehicle of complainant.  The opposite party no.-1 having his show room of the said vehicle has sold vehicle to the complainant in which defect in engine arises which was necessary for change but the opposite party has not done so and the demanded Rs. 35,000/- from him. He has further mentioned that the said vehicle was purchased on finance basis and he is paying the installment and the said vehicle is kept in the showroom of the opposite party no.1 from 30-08-2013 and the opposite party no.1 is deliberately harassing the complainant and not erasing the defect as such he has severed the legal notice dated 01-10-2013. Due to not repair his vehicle there is discrepancy arises against the opposite party.

            The complainant has filed the Xerox copy of job slip dated 20-08-2013, policy paper, registration certificate, driving license , receipt of payment  of installment dated 06-03-2013 and receipts of Rs. 10,000/- dated 28-12-2012 and 21-12-2012 for Rs. 30,000/- to the Yesraj Motors   Pvt. Ltd. Which are annexure 1 to 5

            In this case opposite party no.-2 has filed his written statement  on 05-06-2015 supported with an affidavit  alleged therein that  the complaint case is abuse of process of law and not maintainable, the material fact has been suppressed  and the averment   made there in are vague, baseless, made with malafide intention  and without relying  any expert report from recognized laboratory.  The complainant has made misconceived  and baseless allegation of manufacturing defect and deficiency in service, his case will not come within the definition  of Consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act. He is not a consumer under section 2 (1) (D) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and has submitted that the car Tata  Nano NX has covered more than 80 91 km within a mere span of approximate 7 month which goes to say the extensive usage of car. The complainant has failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner manual. He has further submitted that the said car was reported to service station of opposite party no.-1 which was properly attended by Kumar distributor pvt. Ltd.  Under the warranty and on paid basis on date 14-03-2013, 21-05-2013, 26-03-2013,             29-07-2013, again on dated 30-08-2013  brought  to the  service earlier  of opposite party no.1 after covering  a distance of 9459 km with complainant of engine light &  starting problem & oil leakage the job card dated 30-08-2013  and the letter dated             25-09-2013 are annexed. He has further submitted that the warranty shall be limited for 4 years from the date of sale of vehicle or 60,000 Km whichever comes earlier. The warranty was not apply if the vehicle or any part as their of is repaired or altered otherwise then in accordance with standard repair procedure. The opposite party has relied on the decision published in 1 (2010) C.P.J.-19 (NC), (JT 2006(4) SC 113), (1994) 1, SCC 397,II (2009) C.P.J 295 (NC) and (1996) 4 SCC 704.  Car was purchased through finance and the vehicle is under hypothecation and the complainant is only beneficiaries not the owner till filing the case, hence he is not consumer and has no locus standi to file the complainant. He has further alleged that from perusal of annesxure-B, job card dated 30-08-2013 it appears that the  car has covered distance  of 9459 Km till 30-08-2013 within  span of 8 month which was not possible. Which was communicated to the complainant  by opposite party no.-1 by his letter dated 25-09-2013 annexure-C that the oilsump  found damaged due to external impact and for which the engine of the car seized and same is not covered  under warranty  as such all repair work or to be carried out on paid basis as per  the report  the complainant. The complainant did not given approval for repair of car on paid basis and he wanted repair to be carried out  under warranty which is not possible under the warranty policy of the company more over the complainant has  made baseless allegations of manufacturing  defect without realying  on any expert report from recognized  laboratory . The opposite party at all material time rendered assistance and services to the complainant therefore no deficiency of service and negligent attitude on the part of opposite party arises. He has denied the allegation that opposite party no.-1 has demanded Rs. 35,000/- there is no any instimate of repair was provided to the complainant and on the aforesaid ground the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the case.

            The Opposite party has filed the Xerox copies of service history , job card, jobslip and letter dated 25-09-2013  which are annexure- A, B & C.

            The complainant has further filed petition dated 27-01-2015 u/s – 13 (1) ( C )  of Consumer Protection Act  1986 supported with an affidavit with prayer to direct the complainant to submit a report of appropriate  laboratory after a thorough  inspection of car.

            Considering the fact, circumstances, material available with the record as well as allegations of the respective parties it is apparently clear from service history job card and letter dated 25-04-2013 annexure-A, B, C filed by the opposite party no.-2 with his written statement that the vehicle no.- BR06AB6094 was sold out on 28-12-2012 by Yesraj Motors opposite party no.1 and date of service was 29-07-2013 and the vehicle was run till date 8091 Km  and his first service date was on 14-03-2013 for free service and at that time the vehicle was run about 1411 Km and the complainant has submitted his vehicle  on 30-08-2013 to the opposite party no.-1 and the  vehicle  was run at about 9.459 Km the customer request and repair was advise by service advisor  Mr. Phiroj Haidar and intimate delivery bill is for Rs. 179.776 appears from job card annexure-B and as per job slip it appears that the observation made on  30-08-2013 waiting for customer appearance. The case of complainant is that there was defect in engine which was required to be changed on which the opposite party has demanded Rs. 35,000/- for its repair and his vehicle is financed and he has not get repaired kept his vehicle in the service centre of opposite party no.1 who is avoiding his request and not get repaired his vehicle for which he has send the legal notice.

 Considering of aforesaid allegation we do not find the  basis if  the complainant. How for claiming for value of the vehicle as well as harassment total of Rs.2,55,000/- including the deficiency from opposite party. When admittedly the opposite party has demanded him for repair Rs. 35,000/- which he has not paid and get repair his vehicle although denied  by opposite party no.2   the case of complainant is not based on any guaranty of the vehicle then how an in what circumstances he has filed his claim without any perfect ground of maintainability of his case. The opposite party has denied   this guarantee as such complainant to prove which he has not done.

            Considering the aforesaid allegations with materials and observation  we do not find any merit in the case of applicant as such his case is liable to be dismissed.

 Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.

             Member                                                                                 President