Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/78

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. D.S.Deol, Adv.

16 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                            Consumer Complaint No. :  78 of 08.11.2016

                                               Date of decision           : 16.05.2017

 

 

  Harjinder Singh Gill, son of Jiwant Singh, resident of House No.3163,               Ward No.2, Rambag College Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.   

 

                                                                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                    Versus

 

1. Raj Motors Auth Dealer Mahindra @ Mahindra Ltd. NH. 21, Chotti     Gandhon, Chandigarh Road, Rupnagar, through its Prop./Authorized   Signatory  

2. Mahindra @ Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400039, through its authorized signatory 

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

 

 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                              Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                    MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                     SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

                    Sh. D.S.Deol Advocate, counsel for complainant

                    Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte

                    Sh.K.S. Longia, counsel for Opposite Party No.2 

 

ORDER

                              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                    Sh. Harjinder Singh  has filed this complaint under Section 12                  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the                 Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as                      O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

                     1)      To replace the vehicle in question with the new one or to                                     refund the amount of the vehicle in question along with                                       interest 

                    2)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of                                 mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,

                    3)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                      The brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased Bolero SLX 2WD, 7 Seater AC N PS BS-3, Jeep/car bearing Chassie No.E5J50711, Engine No.GPE4J75829 from the O.Ps. vide invoice dated 21.11.2014. He paid a sum of Rs.7,83,540/- to O.P. No.1, in lieu of that, it issued a receipt dated 19.11.2014. The complainant was regularly getting his vehicle serviced. At the time of running repairs, he informed the O.P. No.1 about the defects in the said vehicle, as its AC was not working properly and there was noise in the engine. It used to stop after running for about 50-60 Km and sometimes only after running about 20-30 Km. Whenever 5-6 peoples travel in the said car, it does not run properly and does not bear the load and would stop on the way. The consumption of the fuel was also high. He had taken his vehicle, time and again to the workshop of the O.P. No.1 for rectification of the defects, the O.P. No.1 every time replaced one or the other defective part(s) and assured him that there will be no problem in the vehicle, in future. However, despite of repeated repairs, the defects could not be removed by the O.P. No.1, which clearly shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The O.Ps., thus, by selling him the defective vehicle have not only committed deficiency in service but have also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                 None having put in appearance on behalf of O.P. No.1, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.2016.

4.                On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.2 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that complainant is not a consumer qua it. The complainant has failed to establish that there is any manufacturing defect in it and the instant complaint is frivolous one and has been filed with malafide intention; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the instant complaint against the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. is the manufacturer of the vehicle and O.P. No.1 is its authorized dealer. It had played no role in the sale of the vehicle, sale is entirely the prerogative of the dealer. The relationship between dealer and company is on ‘principal to principal’ basis, therefore, it cannot be said to be responsible for any act and omission on the part of its dealer. It is only, liable in case there is any manufacturing defect. However, in the present case, complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect. From the copy of repair order dated 25.8.2015, it is evident that on receipt of the complaint from the complainant regarding non cooling of the AC, the O.P. No.1 immediately replaced the AC pipe free of cost. Complainant has never reported the stop problem of the vehicle after running about 50-60 Km or 20-30 Km to any of its dealer.  Complainant has leveled false allegation. The complainant has brought the vehicle for the purpose of service and washing etc for about 9 or 10 times in more than two years and he had also signed the satisfaction note, thus, question of manufacturing defect does not arise at all. Had there been any manufacturing defect, then the vehicle could not run for two years. He never reported any problem regarding average of the vehicle or consumption of more diesel.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.

5.                          On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Authorized Signatory of Mahindra & Mahindra Ex.OP1 and copy of repair order Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.                                   We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                                   Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the car in question from the O.P. No.1, vide invoice dated 21.11.2014, Ex.C3. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that despite repeated repairs, the O.P. No.1 failed to remove the defects of the said vehicle, which clearly shows that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and it needs replacement. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 vehemently argued that from the retail invoices/job sheets, issued by the O.P. No.1, it is abundantly clear that complainant had taken the vehicle in question to the service station of O.P. No.1 for regular service only. The complainant, complained about the defect in the AC on 25.8.2015 and the O.P. No.1 immediately, set the AC of the said vehicle right, by replacing the AC pipe as is evident from repair order dated 25.8.2015, thereafter, complainant never complained with regard to any problem in the AC of the said vehicle. From the retail invoices placed on record by the complainant, it is evident that complainant neither has complained about noise in the engine nor about excessive consumption of fuel. In order to prove that the vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect, complainant has not placed on record report of any expert and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed being devoid of merits.   

8.                          From the perusal of the copy of retail invoices dated 26.3.2015, Ex.C5. dated 01.08.2015 Ex.C6/Ex.C13 and dated 08.02.2016 Ex.C7/Ex.C10, it is evident that complainant had taken the vehicle in question to the O.P. No.1 for free service. From the perusal of retail invoices dated 30.5.2015, Ex.C5/A (Ex.C9), retail invoice dated 25.08.2015, Ex.C12, dated 03.12.2015, Ex.C11, it is evident that the complainant took the vehicle in question to the service station of the O.P. No.1 for running repairs. On the basis of said documents, especially in the absence of report of any expert, it cannot be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Therefore, the prayer made for replacement of the vehicle in question cannot be accepted. Our view is supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, In the case of Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd Vs Dr. Birendra Narain Prashad and Ors, III (2010), CPJ, 130 (NC), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that to establish a claim for the total replacement by a new vehicle, complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence supported by an opinion of expert automobiles/mechanical engineer that vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect.   No doubt, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, however, from the documents placed on record, it is evident that there were some minor defects in the vehicle in question. The plea of the complainant is that he took his vehicle to the repairer, for rectification of the defects of his vehicle after few months of its purchase and thereafter number of times, but, the defects were not removed even after repeated repairs. It may be stated that the document pertaining to warranty has not been placed on record. However, it is of common knowledge that automobiles manufacturing companies usually give warranty of one year. Since, the complainant took the vehicle in question for rectification of the defects after few months of its purchase i.e. within warranty period, therefore, we do not hesitate to hold that O.P. No.1 being repairer and O.P. No.2 being manufacturer are liable to rectify the defects, either by repairing or replacing the defective part (s), free of cost, as per warranty conditions. They are also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation cost. 

9.                                   In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 in the following manner:-

1.                 To rectify the defect(s) of the vehicle in question, free of cost, as               per terms and conditions of the warranty, within 30 days from the                    date of receipt of the vehicle in question from the complainant.

2.                 To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony            and physical harassment suffered by him

3.                   To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation

                    The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are further directed to comply with the order   jointly and severally. We also direct the complainant to take the vehicle             in question to the service centre of O.P. No.1 for its repair, within seven                 days, after receipt of the certified copy of this order.  

10.                        The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules. The file be                 indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated 16.05.2017                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER