BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No. 126 of 2014
Instituted On: 14.10.2014
Decided On: 25.02.2015
Mehal Singh son of Shri Thakar Singh resident of Village Rana, Tehsil and
District Fazilka Mobile No.97790-08198
………Complainant
Versus
1. Ramnik Motors Amritsar Jalandhar Bye-pass Road Moga, through its Authorised Signatory.
2. Royal Skyline Automobiles Pvt. Limited N.H.1-A, Udhampur, Care of Royal Skyline Automobiles Pvt. Limited Chowadhi, Sainik Colony Jammu ( J & K ), through its Authorised Signatory.
3. Asia Motors Works Limited, 34 KM Milestones, Bhuj-Bhachau Road, Village Kanaiyabe, Tehsil Bhuj District Kutch, Gujarat-370020, through its Authorized Signatory.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
****
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //2//
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Present: Sh Tirath Singh Jatana Adv. Cl. for the complainant
Opposite parties-Ex-parte
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Ramnik Motors, Amritsar Jalandhar Bye-pass Road, Moga, through its Authorized Signatory and others (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’) directing them to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with new one or to refund Rs.1,82,110/- as received by opposite party No.1 & 2 for repair, to pay Rs. 3,16,000/- as compensation for non plying the vehicle in question alongwith interest @2% per annum, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension & harassment besides Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant purchased an AMW (Truck) from opposite party No.1 for a consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- by taking a loan from Indusind Bank Limited, Abohar. Opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question, whereas, opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are the authorized dealers regarding sales, service and spares. It has been
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //3//
alleged that at the time of selling the vehicle in question, opposite party No.1 gave a warranty for four years regarding engine and two years on the other parts on the said vehicle. Thereafter, body of the said vehicle got affixed by spending an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from body manufacturers and fabricators at Moga. It has further been alleged that from the date of purchase, the aforesaid vehicle became defective. In this regard, complainant approached opposite party No.1 and made a complaint to opposite party No.1. But opposite party No.1 did not attend the complaint of the complainant. On 25.08.2013, the complainant was going to Sri Nagar with the goods loaded in the vehicle and near Ramsar break down occurred in the engine of the vehicle. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 on telephonically, who referred the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, who was the authorized dealer regarding sales, spares and service of the above said vehicle. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and the latter brought the engine of the vehicle to its service centre at Udhampur, where the necessary repair was done and thereafter the repaired engine was installed in the vehicle in question. It has been alleged that before installing the repaired engine, opposite party No.2 charged Rs. 82,716/- in cash from the complainant, which is wrong and illegal because the vehicle in question was within warranty period. Opposite party No.2 gave a bill for an amount of Rs.62,716/- instead of Rs.82,716/- It has further been alleged that the engine of the vehicle again got break down on 14.12.2013 and the same was brought to the service
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //4//
centre of opposite party No.1 for the same day where after necessary repairs, the complainant was forced to pay Rs.87,014/- for the delivery of the vehicle on 06.02.2014. Some work of the said vehicle was got done from Dashmesh Diesel Service, Moga and on the asking of opposite party No.1, the complainant paid Rs.12,380/- from his own pocket. It has been alleged that there is a manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle in question. The engine of the vehicle of the complainant remained in the service centre of opposite party No.2 from 25.08.2013 to 20.09.2013 and thereafter in the service centre of opposite party No.1 from 14.12.2013 to 06.02.2014 and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- for non-plying the vehicle in question. The complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but all in vain. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Despite due service, opposite parties did not opt to appear and contest the complaint. As such opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 09.01.2015.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and affidavit of Karan Singh Ex.C-21 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-20, Ex.C-22 and Ex.C-23 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the record.
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //5//
6. It is the case of the complainant that engine of the vehicle in dispute was having a manufacturing defect and the same requires replacement with a new one. It is further case of the complainant that the vehicle in dispute was purchased on 22.12.2011 while the same broke down on 25.08.2013 for the first time while proceeding to Sri Nagar ( J & K). The complainant took the vehicle to opposite party No.2 and was forced to pay Rs.82,716/- for repairing & price of the spare parts. Thereafter, again on 14.12.2013, the engine of the vehicle in dispute broke down and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.87,014/- for repairing & price of spare parts and the delivery of the vehicle was given to him on 06.02.2014. Both the brake downs of the vehicle in dispute took place within warranty period and the opposite parties were not entitled to demand or accept any payment on account of repairs undertaken by them. Letter of warranty deed Ex.C-20 has been referred to in this regard, wherein the engine had a warranty of 24 months.
7. So far as the vehicle suffering from any manufacturing defect is concerned, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the same. The complainant has relied upon inspection report dated 02.02.2015 Ex.C-22 on record. But, however, a perusal of the report shows that the engine does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. It was incumbent upon the complainant to have led evidence to prove that the engine was having some manufacturing defect and the same was beyond the scope of repair and the same requires replacement. But, however, the evidence adduced by the
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //6//
complainant is deficient on this vital aspect and the relief claimed in that regard cannot be granted in this favour.
8. Further stand of the complainant that the opposite parties could not charge a sum of Rs.82,716/- and Rs.87,014/- on account of repairs undertaken by opposite party No. 2 & authorized service centre for opposite party No.1 on 20.09.2013 and 06.02.2014 respectively, is concerned, the evidence on record shows that a sum of Rs.62,716/- was actually paid by the complainant to opposite party No.2 on 20.09.2013, which was within warranty period. However, the stand that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was received in addition to that sum, is not proved on record. The complainant was duty bound to produce documentary evidence in support of his case. But, however, the documents Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-16 adduced on record prove the case of the complainant for payment of Rs.62,716/- only. Charging a sum of Rs.62,716/- by opposite party No.2 from the complainant as repair charges and price of spare parts, amounts to unfair trade practice and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund that amount to the complainant. So far as the amount of Rs.87,014/- is concerned, the case of the complainant does not fall within warranty period because tax invoice Ex.C-18 on record pertains to 08.02.2014, whereas, the warranty period expired on 21.12.2013. There is nothing tangible on record to prove that the vehicle broke down on 14.12.2013 or it was actually taken for repairs on that day. In such a situation, it will have to be presumed that the vehicle broke down for the second time in February
C.C.No. 126 of 2014 //7//
2014 & as such it was not within its warranty cover.
9. So far as claim for compensation on account of non plying of the vehicle is concerned, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said fact. Had the vehicle in dispute been standing idle w.e.f. 25.08.2013 to 20.09.2013 and again from 14.12.2013 to 06.02.2014, the complainant must have filed the complaint with immediate effect and he may not have waited for such a long time to file the instant complaint. It appears that the complainant has tried to set up an exaggerated claim to pressurize the opposite parties.
10. From the aforesaid discussion, it become evident that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 being sellers and manufacturer respectively while opposite party No.2 being service provider are jointly, severally and co-extensively liable to refund Rs.62,716/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of the payment until full and final recovery. The complaint stands partly allowed in exparte. Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt its copy. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:25.02.2015.
