| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 472 of 25.11.2016 Decided on: 22.10.2020 Daljeet Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o Village Nardu Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.Authorized Dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh Rajpura Road, Patiala. 2nd Address: Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Branch of Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Smt.Geeta Bharti,Adv. counsel for complainant. Sh.Sanjay Khanna,Adv. counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Daljeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Passenger Carrier 5 seater Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. bearing chassis No.MAIFM2HLWF6K31855, engine No.HLF6K31455 on 31.12.2015 from the OP.
- The plea of the complainant is that AC/blower of the said vehicle was not functioning properly from the very beginning and time and again he approached the OP regarding non functioning of the same. It is averred that the OP repaired the AC/blower of the vehicle with the assurance that it will work properly but AC/Blower of the vehicle never worked properly.
- It is further averred that the complainant got sent legal notices dated 17.9.2016 and 15.10.2016 through his counsel for fixing new one in lieu of AC/blower fixed at the time of selling the vehicle but the OP did not give any reply to the legal notices.
- It is averred that the OP failed to repair or replace the AC/blower fitted in the vehicle even though the same was within guarantee period .There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer that the complaint be accepted by giving direction to the OP to replace the AC/Blower, free of costs with new warranty/guarantee; to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony, and inconvenience, to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses alongwith any relief for which the complainant is found entitled under the law.
- Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous to the knowledge of the OP, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
On merits it is admitted to the extent that the vehicle was purchased from the OP. It is denied that the AC/blower is not working from very beginning. It is averred that since there is no fault in the AC/Blower, therefore, there is no question of replacing the same. The OP denied allother averments made in the complaint and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - To prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Manager ,Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Rajpura Road, Patiala and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 31.12.2015.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant time and again complained to the OP regarding non functioning of the AC. He further argued that despite repeated requests AC never got repaired even through two legal notices dated 17.9.2016 and 15.10.2016 were served upon the OP regarding the non functioning of the AC but the same were not replied. Hence the complaint be accepted.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP argued that since there is no defect in the AC so there is no question of replacing the same. The ld. counsel further argued that there is no force in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
- To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the averments made in the complaint, Ex.C1 is the legal notice dated 15.10.2016,wherein it is clearly stated that despite repair, the AC/blower never came in to working condition. Another legal notice is Ex.C2 dated 17.9.2016, it is also regarding non functioning of the AC/blower. Both the notices were sent through registered post. The postal receipts are Exs.C3 &C4.But no reply was given to theses notices by the OPs. Now the stand of the OP that AC was never defective is falsified, it was incumbent upon the OP to give reply to the legal notices rebutting the contents of the same.Ex.C6 is the sale certificate issued by the OP.Ex.C7 is the receipt vide which the vehicle in question was purchased for Rs.5,04,205/-.Ex.C8 is the insurance policy.Ex.C9 is the Aadhar card of the complainant and Ex.C10 is the retail invoice.
- On the other hand, Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Manager tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA on behalf of the OP and he has denied the contents of the complaint.
- So it is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased on 31.12.2015 from the OP and as per the complaint and as per the legal notices dated 17.9.2016 and 15.10.2016, the AC/blower was not functioning. As already stated above, the OP has denied entire case of the complainant but no reply to the legal notices was ever given to the complainant by OP rebutting his claim. The non filing / giving reply to the legal notices is falsified to the stand taken by the OP.
- So by taking all the contents of the complaint and legal notices, it is clear that the AC/blower was not functioning and complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to change the AC/blower with new one within 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses to the complainant.
ANNOUNCED DATED:22.10.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
