BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 177 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 18.12.2014.
Date of Decision : 18.10.2016.
Subhash Chander son of Shri Fateh Chand, resident of village Nezadela Khurd, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- RP Jhunthra Motors (P) Ltd., Near Air Force Station, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its proprietor/ Manager.
2. Nissan Motors India Private Limited, Plot No.1A, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Mattur Post, Oragadam, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram (Distt) – 602 105 (TN), through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.C. Sihag, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Dharminder Chauhan, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a new Nissan Micra Active Petrol Car from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.4,21,096/- vide invoice No.VSLA13000018 dated 11.10.2013 and that time he was given warranty/ guarantee against all manufacturing defects in the car. On 18.12.2013, the said car developed a defect i.e. glowing of cluster meter. The complainant reported the said defect to op no.1 on many occasions, but op no.1 could not remove the same despite periodical services from time to time. Even he left the car at workshop of op no.1 on several occasions for number of days but to no effect and the said defect is still persisting in the car. The above defect is causing adverse impact on the functioning and performance of said car and thus, the complainant is unable to proper use it. The ops have failed to remove the above defect, so it shows that there is manufacturing defect in the car and same requires full replacement. The complainant is entitled to either replacement of the car with a new one or refund of price of the car besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment. The complainant approached the ops and requested them to admit his claim but they did not pay any heed to the same. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops on 30.10.2014 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing written statement asserting therein that complainant has purchased a petrol car but on 18.12.2013 the complainant got filled the fuel tank by diesel instead of petrol. The answering op checked the car and drained out the whole diesel from the car and not only this, op no.1 washed the whole parts of the engine free of cost. Due to this reason, the cluster meter was blinking and that defect was also removed by the hard work of the company. Such an act of the complainant could cease the engine and that does not fall in the warranty of the company but despite the wrong doing of complainant, the efforts of answering op were never seen by the complainant. Moreover, after 18.12.2013 the complainant has visited the premises of answering op on 6.2.2014 for first service only and that service was given as per terms and conditions by the op and complainant was fully satisfied at that time and filled the service feedback form by giving excellent numbers in that form. Then the complainant visited on 26.6.2014 as there was some starting problem which was removed on the same day. After that he visited on 28.6.2014 with problem of blinking of cluster meter, which was solved on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant has made one online complaint of answering op in the company and in this regard a clarification letter was duly sent to the complainant through registered post by answering op. Then the complainant came to the premises of answering op on 13.8.2014 in the afternoon and the car was ready on the next day i.e. 14.8.2014 but complainant not turned up to take his car despite the fact that answering op has made several calls to him on his mobile and after strenuous efforts of answering op, the complainant came on 18.8.2014 for taking the delivery of the car. The problem written by complainant in the complaint i.e. glowing of cluster meter is in fact no defect but it is an indication for malfunction of the light which indicates that there may be some fuel related problem in the car of complainant, meaning thereby that this is only an indication and not any defect.
3. OP no.2 in its separately reply has averred that complainant has not produced any expert opinion to support his allegations of manufacturing defect. The alleged problems of glowing of the cluster meter were not of such nature so as to render the vehicle completely immobilized or adversely impact the functioning of the said vehicle and so as to entail replacement of the vehicle. The complainant filled diesel in his petrol car and the use of improper or dirty fuel, fluids or lubrications is not covered under the warranty.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, ops have tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is nothing on file to suggest/ prove that vehicle in question is having any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion to prove the manufacturing defect in the car. According to the ops, glowing of cluster meter is due to filling of diesel instead of petrol in the fuel tank which is own fault of the complainant, however, they have drained out the whole diesel from the car and washed the whole parts of the engine free of costs despite wrong doings of complainant himself. The opposite parties have provided after sale services to the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7 which are signed by the complainant himself and satisfaction note dated 28.6.2014 also bears his signatures. So, no case for replacement of the car in question or refund of the price of the car is made out. At the most, the opposite parties can be directed to make the vehicle in question defect free to the satisfaction of complainant.
7. Keeping in view of our above discussion, it is ordered that complainant will meet the opposite party no.1 and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 jointly and severally will be liable to remove the defect, if any from the vehicle in question free of costs to the satisfaction of complainant within one month after approaching of the complainant to them. The present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:18.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
