Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/82/2018

Suman Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Mohpal Singh

27 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.     82 of 2018

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                25.05.2018

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                           27.09.2024

 

Smt. Suman Jain wife of Shri Lalit Kumar Jain R/o Near Old Post Office, Ward No.11, Tulsi Chowk, Bawani Khera, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         M/s Raj Motors, Old Delhi Road, Rohtak, Tehsil and District Rohtak through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized person.

 

2.         M/s Telmos Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Opp. Vidyut Nagar, Delhi Raod, Hisar through its General Manager/authorized signatory.

 

3.         TATA Motors Ltd., 2^nd Floor, SCO No.364-366, Sector-34A, Chandigarh through its Customer Head North India/Manager/authorized signatory.

 

4.         TATA Motors Ltd., 4^th Floor, Ahura Center, 82 Mahakali Cavas Road, MIDC, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400093 through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

5.         TATA Motors Ltd., having one of its branch office at Rohtak Road, Bhiwani known as Mahadev Motors Ltd. through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

6.         National Insurance company Ltd., having one of its branch at Bhiwani through its Branch Manager, vide policy No.55270031176160074185 valid from 01.08.2017 to midnight of 31.07.2018.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-         Sh. Rupesh Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Sumit Sheoran, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

                        Sh. N.S. Vijayrania, Advocate for OPs No.3 to 5.

                        Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP No.6.

 

ORDER:

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that husband of complainant believing on OP No.1, purchased a Car TATA Tiago-XT on 02.08.2016 in a sum of Rs.5,00,969/- having registration no.HR-16R-9278. The car was insured with OP No.6.  It is submitted that from the day first, the vehicle was having defect in Glow Box, so complaint was made to OP No.1 who suggested to approach OP No.2 and it repaired the lock but the problem was as such. However, after sometime, the OP No.2 changed the glow box but there was no change in the glow box of the vehicle. Thereafter, many complaints from 15.04.2017 to 24.03.2018 were made to the higher officials of the OPs, they suggested to change the desk board, which was got changed but the problems was not removed. Complainant has submitted that on the advice of OP No.2, gear lever of the car was changed. But after sometime, another problem of front left right power window glass regulate machine occurred in the car. So, both the machines of window was got changed but the problem could not sort out. On 28.02.2018, husband of complainant contacted Mr.Manoj Singh-OP No.2 and Mr.Parnay Gupta-OP No.3, they got checked the vehicle and found 8 problems in the car and a joint report was prepared at the spot. So, legal notice dated 11.04.2018 was send upon the OPs but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss, mental & physical harassment and humiliation among the neighbor and relatives. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,969/- alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of purchase till actual realization or to replace the defective car with new car, to pay Rs.2.50 lac as compensation for harassment. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels. OP No.1 file written statement raising objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the car was sold to the complainant as defect free and complainant had no grievance of any kind at the time of selling the car. After selling the car, complainant never approached the answering OP nor made any complaint. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed dismissal of the complaint with cost.  

3.                     OP No.2 filed written statement submitting that there is no privy contract between the complainant and answering OP, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was brought to the answering OP for the purpose of service and it was done to the satisfaction of complainant. Further, the vehicle met with an accident prior to 21.11.2016 and thus warranty/guarantee automatically come to an end. The complainant is alleging defect in glow box but it was not a manufacturing defect. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                     OPs No.3 to 5 filed written statement denying any defect in the Glow Box of the car. It is submitted that complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop on 28.09.2016 at 1493 kms. for availing first free service, at that time, no defect reported in the vehicle. Thereafter vehicle was brought on 21.11.2016 at 2661 kms. for accidental repairs. Subsequently, the vehicle was reported on 31.01.2017 for campaign service. At that time too, accidental repairs was carried out. Thus the averments of complainant that there was problem of Glow Box in the vehicle since its purchase cannot be relied upon. It is submitted that complainant lastly brought the vehicle on 21.07.2018 for availing paid service at 21324 kms but no complaint was made which clearly states that the vehicle is defect free and was in roadworthy condition. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                     OP No.6 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua locus standi, maintainability of complaint and complaint being false and frivolous. On merits, it is submitted that no insurance claim is payable by the answering OP in respect of so called manufacturing defect in the insured vehicle as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.                     In evidence of complainant, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 were tendered and closed the evidence on 21.03.2024.

7.                     On the other side, Ld. counsel for OP No.1 closed his evidence vide statement dated 28.02.2020. Evidence of OP No.2 was closed by Court vide order dated 03.08.2023.

8.                     In evidence of OPs No.3 to 5 affidavits R-1 & R-2 were filed and closed the evidence on 07.03.2019.

9.                     In evidence of OP No.6 document Annexure R-6 was filed and closed the evidence on 03.08.2023.

10.                   We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

11.                   At the outset, the grievance of complainant is that the vehicle in question so purchased by him from OP No.1, manufactured by OPs No.3 to 5 remained defective from its early days of the purchase but despite making various complaints, it was not rectified by the OPs. On the other side, the defence of the OPs are that the vehicle was sold as defect free and no complaint ever received from complainant.  It is argued that  the vehicle was purchased by complainant on 02.08.2016 and it met with an accident on 21.11.2016 and the alleged defects in the vehicle as per documents produced by complainant in his evidence occurred since April 2017.  Thus the defect(s) in the vehicle occurred after the vehicle met with an accident.

12.                   After hearing learned counsels for the parties and going through the entire material on record from both the sides, we have observed that the oral assertions made by complainant are not supported with any mechanical report whereas there was an option with complainant to get the vehicle mechanically examined through assistance of the Commission but he did not opt for such remedy. As such, the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle is not proved on record as well as we do not see any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of any of the OPs. As a sequel to the above, in the absence of any convincing and cogent evidence, we are not inclined to go with the averments made in the complaint, accordingly, the complaint being without any merits is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.              

Announced.

Dated:27.09.2024.