DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 23.2.2017

                                      Decided on:         9.7.2021

Maninderpal Singh son of S.Sadhu Singh Sidhu, resident of #184, Street No.1, Gurbax Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.(Auth. Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.) village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Directors/Managing Director/Manager.
2. Sh.Jaskaran, Managing Director Raj Vehicles (P) Ltd., Showroom & Works: Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh Rajpura Road, Patiala.
3. Sh.Akshay Uppal Sales Manager ( HighEnd) Raj Vehicles (P) Ltd., Showroom & Works: Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh Rajpura Road, Patiala.
4. Sh.Neeraj General Manager Raj Vehicles (P) Ltd., Showroom & Works: Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh Rajpura Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.J.D.Bansal, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Sanjay Khanna, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      OPs No.3& 4 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Maninderpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Raj Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant purchased a new car/SUV make Mahindra XUV500 R FWD W8 bearing engine No.HHG4D23690 and chassis No.MA1YU2HHUGE14769 colour NPERLWHT from OPs vide invoice dated 12.8.2016 for the sum of Rs.16,75,000/- and the complainant got financed the vehicle in question.
3. It is averred that after some of  purchase it started giving problems in its window of driver seat and the complainant complained about the same to the OPs many times but the OPs did not pay any heed. It is further averred that the complainant came to know that the widow of driver seat is painted and the complainant requested the OPs to replace the same but the OPs did not do so. The complainant also got sent legal notice dated 1.12.2016 upon the OPs with the request to replace the car or to refund the amount but of no avail the OPs did not pay any heed. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to replace the car with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.16,75,000/- alongwith interest; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25000/-as costs of litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OPs No.1&2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, whereas none appeared on behalf of OPs No.3&4 and they were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
5. In the reply filed by OPs No.1&2 preliminary objections have been raised that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and that the complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
6. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OPs on 12.8.2016.It is denied that after some time of purchase it started giving problems in its window of driver seat. It is also denied that old car was given to the complainant. It is pleaded that false allegations have been leveled. After denying all other averments, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1to C7 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, Manager Raj Vehicle and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 12.8.2016 for Rs.16,75,000 and the same was got financed. The ld. counsel further argued that after some time the complainant came to know that window of driver seat was repainted. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant requested the OPs to change the vehicle or to refund the amount but of no avail. So the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 has argued that there is no evidence on the file led by the complainant that the window was repainted. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant never approached the OPs and false allegations have been leveled so the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and has deposed as per the complaint,Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the vehicle was purchased on 11.8.2016,Ex.C2  is registration number of the vehicle, Ex.C3 is the legal notice.
13. On behalf of the OPs Sh.Gurpreet Singh has tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per his written statement.
14. As per the allegations of the complainant he has purchased a new vehicle on 12.8.2016 for Rs.16,75,000/- of Mahindra XUV500 R FWD W8 and after that it was found that the window was repainted. So request was made that amount be refunded or vehicle be replaced with new one.
15. The onus was on the complainant to prove that the vehicle which was purchased by him from the OPs was repainted one. There is no evidence on the file to prove that the old car has been sold to the complainant. There is also no evidence to prove that the window was repainted. Complainant was duty bound to prove by way of expert evidence/report of some painter from which it could be proved that window was repainted or he should produce lab report in this regard and from that report it could have been gathered that the vehicle was repainted. The photographs have also not been produced on file to prove that the vehicle was repainted. This complaint is totally false as no evidence has been produced by the complainant from which it can be gathered that old vehicle has been sold by the OPs to him. The main evidence of this case has already been discussed was the report of some painter or some lab, from that reports it could have been  gathered that the old car has been sold and the window was repainted.
16. So due to our above discussion, as there is no evidence on the file to prove that old car has been sold, so the complaint is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:9.7.2021         

                                        Vinod Kumar Gulati  Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                 Member                       President