Haryana

StateCommission

A/414/2014

LIBRA CARS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJPAL - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN SEHRAWAT

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No. 414 of 2014

Date of Institution: 26.05.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 07.12.2016

M/s Libra Cars Private Limited through its Authorized Representative having its registered office at plot No.21 G.T.Karnal Road, Kundli Border, Sonepat, Haryana (Impleaded as in the complaint) Libra Ford, 53/26, Jagdama Farm, behind Yadu Green Resort, GT Road, Alipur, Delhi.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1. Rajpal S/o Shri Banarsi Dass, R/o village and post office Murthal, Tehsil and District Sonepat, Haryana.

…..Contesting Respondent

2. Kanav Motors Private Limited through its Managing director having its office at 118/7, Milestone, National Highway No.1, GT road, Karnal, Haryana-132001.
3. M/s Ford India Private Limited through its Managing Director, S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr.NImanyu Gautam, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that  he purchased car from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 on 07.07.2011 with warranty of two years which was extended by one year.  Service was carried out by O.P.Nos.1 and 2  as per invoices attached with.  On 07.02.2013 he got breakshoe of his car replaced from O.P.No.1. Thereafter he was going to Karnal to attend funeral ceremony of his father, but, after covering distance of 40 Kms when he was near Samalakha, engine of the car was ceased.  He gave telephonic message to O.P.No.1 about problem and as per their directions the car was taken to workshop after toeing with Scorpio.  As engine ceased due to manufacturing defect, he was not liable to make any payment.  O.P.No.1 refused to repair free of charge. Untimately O.P.No.1 demanded Rs.1,20,000/- vide letter dated 24.04.2013 about cost of repairs. When he went to workshop Rs.60,000/- were further demanded whereas he was not liable to pay any amount. O.ps. be directed to repair vehicle free of costs or replace the same.  Notice about demand be also withdrawn and he be granted compensation as prayed for.

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.P.No.1 that  there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. When it was brought to workshop it was found that there was no coolant in Radiator due to some accident. Engine ceased due to overheating.  Warranty came to an end when the vehicle was damaged due to accident. Insurance company was approached by it’s staff about replacement of the items covered by insurance policy. Complainant did not deposit the amount of his share qua the repairs even after notice. The fault was not due to any deficiency in service on it’s part. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.No.2 alleged that District Forum Sonepat was not having jurisdiction to try the complaint.  There were no allegations about any deficiency in service on it’s part. Complaint was not maintainable against it and the same be dismissed.

4.      O.P.No.3 alleged in the reply that there was no evidence on the file about manufacturing defect. As per complainant he purchased car on 07.07.2011 whereas it broke down on 07.09.2013.  As per job cards it was clear that this car met with an accident just after 12 days of purchase. Objections about concealment of f act etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.04.2014 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 not to charge the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- or any other parking charges from the complainant and to deliver the vehicle in question to the complainant in working condition without any further delay. The respondent no.1 is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that O.Ps. have produced scanned documents which cannot be looked into. There is no cogent evidence on the file to show that the vehicle in question met with an accident.  When he was to reach his village at 02.00 p.m. how it was possible for him to fill the form about compensation because vehicle broke down at 12.30 p.m. The O.Ps. procured false and frivolous evidence just to deny his right. From the perusal of the photograph Ex.A-1 it is clear that the bumper was intact. Had any dog hit the car resulting into leakage of coolant from Radiator. The bumper must have been damaged. So it cannot be presumed that vehicle was damaged due to any accident.  He  got the vehicle serviced  from O.P.No.1 on  28.01.2013 and engine ceased on  07.02.2012. It shows that vehicle was not serviced properly and that is why the engine ceased.   Learned District forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. The appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed.    It is also well settled that Evidence Act, 1872 (In Short “Evidence Act”) is not strictly applicable in consumer complaints as per view of Hon’ble National Commission in first appeal No.512 of 2013 titled as Sheela R.Ohri Vs.Bajaj Aallianz General Insurance decided on 11.11.2014.

9.      This argument is devoid of any force. It is no where proved by complainant that claim form Ex.A-/2 was not bearing his signatures. This form was submitted before insurance company to get compensation wherein it is specifically alleged that  on 07.02.2013 he was going to karnal at about 14.00 hrs when he was near Samalakha suddenly a dog came infront of his car and due to  his impact vehicle was damaged. This declaration of complainant is falsifying his plea. As per photographs it is clear that there is damage to bumper as well as front side of the vehicle. Further, he got his car serviced on  28.01.2013 and the engine ceased on 07.02.2013.  Had O.P No.1 not put coolant in the car it would not have run for such long time and engine  would have ceased much before this date. It is no where alleged by complainant that after service  on 28.01.2013 he did not use this car. As per complainant on 07.02.2013 he got the break-shoe repaired from O.P.No.1. When break-shoe was repaired, where was the question of leakage of coolant. They are altogether different parts  All these facts clearly show that the complainant is trying to escape from his liability to make payment.  

10.    Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects and wrongly granted compensation as mentioned above. Resultantly impugned order dated  25.04.2014 is set aside.  Complaint is dismissed and appeal is allowed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal by the appellant be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

December 07th, , 2016	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K