Haryana

StateCommission

A/454/2016

P P AUTOMOTIVE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.KHILLAN

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.454 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 20.05.2016

Date of Decision: 08.12.2016

 

 

1. M/s P.P.Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Through Amrit Lal Bambha its Authorized signatory, having its office at nirmal Motor building, Meerut Road, kaithal.
2. Harbhajan Singh, Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra, P.P.Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Branch at Kaithal Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
3. Deepak Salesman Mahindra & Mahindra, P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Branch at Kaithal Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Sh.Raj Kumar S/o Sh.Kalu Ram, R/o Village Peedal, Tehsil & District Kaithal.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.M.S.Khillan, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased mini van from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 on 06.12.2013 against the payment  of Rs.3,70,000/-.  He was asked to wait  for one hour and told that  Mahindra Maximo mini Van VXBS-111 Chassis NO.D6J31340, Engine NO.MCD6J32865,Colour D-White, TRC No.HR-99-QB(T)0087 would be given to him.  Ultimately he was asked to wait outside the showroom.  At about 8.00 p.m. mini van NO. HR 99-QB (T) 0085 was delivered, but, in the bill, which was handed-over to him HR-99-QB(T) 0087 was mentioned.  He immediately asked  them about difference, but, they asked him  not to worry and that was only formality. On the next day he went to get music system fitted in his vehicle and the mechanic told that there was difference in colours of left and right side of mini van.  There was logo on the left side, whereas the same was missing on right side.  On that very day he went to O.P.No.1 and brought this fact to his notice, but, was asked to come on the next day.  On  08.12.2013 he again went there and was again asked to come on the next day. When he again went there they flatly refused to entertain his complaint. Thereafter he contacted O.P.No.3 and he provided him toll free number.  He also assured to ask O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to look into the matter. Matter was put off under one pretext or the other and ultimately they flatly refused to give any relief on 25.12.2013.

2.      In reply it was alleged that actual temporary registration NO. HR-99-QB(T) 0085 was provided to this vehicle, but, due to inadvertence  HR-99-QB(T) 0087 was mentioned by the clerk which was corrected immediately. There was no difference in the colour or dent in the vehicle as alleged by him. Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, estopple, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In Short “ Disrict Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 21.04.2016 and directed  all O.Ps to replace mini van and if mini van of same description was not available with the O.Ps, then to refund the actual cost of mini van to the complainant. The O.Ps. were also burdened with Rs.2200/- to be paid as compensation in lump sum on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos.1 and 2  have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant-respondent vehemently argued that  from the perusal of photographs Ex.C-6 it is clear that there is logo on the left hand side, whereas there is no such logo on right hand side in Ex.C-9.  Actually there was difference in colour that is why this logo was fixed.  Learned District Forum rightly come to conclusion that damaged vehicle was supplied to him, so appeal be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail. General Works Manager of Haryana Roadways, Kaithal submitted inspection report Ex.PX dated 22.12.2015.  It is specifically mentioned therein that it did not appear that vehicle was old when sold.  If vehicle has been damaged lateron it does not mean that there is any fault on the part of the O.Ps.  The complainant has not produced any document on the file showing that just on the next date he brought this fact to the notice of O.Ps.  Complainant has not produced mechanic who pointed out the defect as alleged by him. If it was so then whey he did not get the vehicle examined there and then.  He issued notice Ex.C-4 on  03.01.2014 whereas vehicle was purchased on 06.12.2013. In the absence of any report it cannot be presumed that vehicle was repainted or was defective at the time of sale.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration  this aspect and granted the relief as mentioned above.  In the absence of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the O.Ps. cannot be directed to replace the vehicle in question.  Resultantly impugned order dated 21.04.2016 is set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

 

December 08th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.