Punjab

Sangrur

CC/155/2016

Tarsem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sachkhand Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Shri D.S Dalee

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  155

                                                Instituted on:    18.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       22.09.2016

 

Tarsem Chand son of Shri Hari Ram, resident of House No.64, Surjan Basti Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Sachkhand Auto Mobiles, Village Phaguwala, Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     Area Service Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. 1^st Floor, SCO 170-171-172, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

3.     Regional Service Manager (North) Tata Motors Ltd. Regional Office Jeevan Tara 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.

4.     Tata Motors Ltd. Customer Support – Commercial Vehicles Teen Hath Naka Gyan Sadhana College Service Road, Thane-400 064 through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri D.S.Dalee,  Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

For OP. No.2to4       :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Tarsem Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the owner of truck 2518 bearing registration number PB-13-AF-5432 2013 model make Tata which was purchased from the OPs with four years warranty.  Further case of the complainant is that on 11.11.2014 there was some problem in the gearbox of the truck and as such he approached OP number 1 for its repairs, but the Op number 1 told that this work is not under warranty as such an amount of Rs.62000/- approximate is required to be spent on the same and when the complainant showed his inability to spent the amount, then the OP number 1 settled the same at Rs.17,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the OP number 1, but no receipt was issued for the same.  It is further averred that the same problem arose in the gear box on 25.4.2015 and the complainant went to Bansal Auto, Patran, who told that the vehicle is still under warranty and apprised that the OP number 1 has wrongly charged an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the complainant which requires to be refunded. It is further contended that though the vehicle was under warranty, the OP number 1 charged the amount from the complainant illegally. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay him the compensation of Rs.20,000/- for financial loss caused to the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the present complaint is a counter blast to the complaint filed by Op number 1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the complaint. On merits, it is denied that the vehicle in question was having four years warranty.   It has been denied that the complainant visited the OP number 1 on 11.11.2014 for problem in gear box and further it is denied that the  OP number 1 demanded the amount of Rs.60,000/- or Rs.62,000/-. It is denied in toto that the amount of Rs17000/- was ever charged from the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant visited the OP on 24.11.2014 at a reading of the truck at 75253 with the complaint of noise in the crown and the said problem was duly rectified.  Thereafter the complainant visited on 26.1.2015 at a reading of 88623 KM and at that time the work of the clutch was done to his satisfaction.  Thereafter the complainant visited on 5.2.2015 at a reading of 89893 for service of the vehicle which was done free of cost. It is further stated that the complainant also filed a false application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur which was investigated by the DSP Dirba in which it was clearly told that the complainant is submitting the false applications against the OP number 1. Even the complainant filed the application against the guarantor of the complainant for taking the loan over his truck.  The complainant is a defaulter person and is not repaying the loan amount.  It is stated further that two FIRs have been registered against the complainant for running the vehicle by overloading it.   It is further stated that the complainant had purchased the tyres from sister concern of OP number 1 namely M/s. MB Tyres and to discharge that liability the brother of the complainant namely Parveen Chand issued a cheque number 544310 dated 23.7.2015 for the amount of Rs.1,62,000/- which was dishonoured and the complaint is pending in the court of Ld. JMIC Sangrur. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 to 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a  consumer of the OPs under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the complaint is false and without any basis, as there is no manufacturing defect in the truck in question, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the parties, that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs and the jurisdiction of this Forum has also been disputed. On merits,  it has been admitted that the complainant had purchased the truck in question, but the other allegations levelled in the complaint receiving of any amount from the complainant has been denied.  However, it is stated that whenever the complainant visited for repairs of the truck the same were done at his full satisfaction. The other allegations levelled the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copy of history of the truck, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 copies of applications, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-22 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of job card, Ex.OP1/2 copy of tax invoice and Ex.OP1/3 copy of satisfaction note, Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/9 copies of tax invoice and satisfaction job sheet, Ex.OP1/10 copy of FIR, Ex.OP1/11 to Ex.OP1/15 copies of letters and postal receipt, Ex.OP1/16 copy of legal notice, Ex.OP1/17 copy of cheque, Ex.OP1/18 copy of memorandum, Ex.OP1/19 copy of order dated 11.12.2015 and Ex.Op1/20 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for the OP number 2 to 4 has tendered Ex.Op2to4/1 affidavit, Ex.Op2to4/2 copy of warranty card and terms and conditions, Ex.OP2to4/3 copy of satisfaction note, Ex.OP2to4/5 copy of tax invoice and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the truck in question from the OPs. It is further an admitted fact that the complainant was visiting the Ops from time to time for getting repaired the truck in question.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.11.2014 he visited OP number 1 for getting the gear box of the truck in question repaired, but the Op number 1 demanded an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant, but later on the OP number 1 agreed to repair the truck in question by charging only Rs.17,000/-.  The complainant has alleged that by this way the OP has charged this amount illegally and without any basis, more so when the truck in question was under warranty conditions.   On the other hand, the stand of the Op number 1 is that the complainant never visited on 12.11.2014 for getting the gear box of the truck in question repaired nor he ever charged Rs.17,000/- from the complainant as alleged in the complaint.  The learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended further vehemently that this complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention only to counter blast the complaint filed by the sister concern of  the OP number 1 i.e. M/s. M.B.Tyres, Sangrur against the complainant for recovery of the dues in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur.   This fact is also supported by the documents produced on record as copy of cheque Ex.OP1/17,  copy of memo Ex.Op1/18 and copy of order passed by JMIC/Sangrur Ex.OP1/19 on record.  The Op number 2 has also produced on record a copy of investigation report of the SHO Dirba dated 15.7.2015, which is on record Ex.OP1/12, which was conducted on the application of the complainant Tarsem Chand, but the same was also found to be false.

 

7.             Further a bare perusal of the file shows that the complainant has alleged that the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the complainant for repair of the gear box of the truck in question, but the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the OP number 1 charged an amount of Rs.17,000/- from the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record that the OP number 1 ever charged any amount from the complainant, more so when it seems that it is only a counter blast against the complaint filed by the op number 1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the court of CJIC, Sangrur. 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the case and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 22, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member