Haryana

StateCommission

RP/70/2015

M/s L.R. Hyundai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sahab Chand - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  70 of 2015

Date of Institution       : 09.09.2015

Date of Decision         : 03.11.2015

 

M/s L.R. Hyundai Kaithal, N.H. 65, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal through Kapil Narula (Service Manager).

                                      Petitioner

Versus

 

Sahab Chand s/o Sh. Dharam Pal, Resident of Village Khairi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sunil Polist, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Shri Jitender Saharan, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 28^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in execution application filed by Sahab Chand-respondent/complainant.

 2.     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a car bearing registration No.HR-08K-7313, Hyundai Verna, from the petitioner-opposite party. He filed complaint before the District Forum alleging manufacturing defect in the car and the same was allowed vide order dated August 19^th, 2013 directing the opposite party as under:-

“…..we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to inspect and check the said car thoroughly and rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant without any charges and further to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.”

3.      Aggrieved M/s L.R. Hyundai-Opposite Party No.1 filed First Appeal No.400 of 2014 before this Commission.

4.      During the hearing of the appeal, vide order dated November 5^th, 2014 an offer being made to the effect that the opposite party would repair the car, following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that appellant is ready to get the car repaired free of cost.  After repair of the car, two engineers of Hyundai Automobiles would examine and issue a certificate to the complainant with respect to the repair and would place the same on record on the next date of hearing.                  The proposal given by the learned counsel for the appellant has been accepted by the complainant. 

In view of this, complainant shall take the car at the garage of the appellant tomorrow, that is, 06^th August, 2014.  The car shall be got repaired free of cost by the appellant within seven days.

                             Adjourned to 28.11.2014.”

5.      Pursuance thereto, after repairs certificates (Annexure P-5 & P-5A) issued by two engineers were placed on the file.

6.      On January 9^th, 2015, the appeal file was put up before the Additional Bench of this Commission however the same was dismissed on technical ground being barred by time.

7.      Taking benefit of dismissal of appeal filed by opposite party No.1, the complainant filed application before the District Forum to restore the execution proceedings, which were adjourned sine-die due to the stay granted by this Commission in appeal.  Notice being issued, the petitioner appeared and filed objections. The District Forum got the vehicle examined from Motor Vehicle Inspector, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, who submitted report Annexure P/9.  Taking into account the said report, the District Forum vide impugned order dated August 28^th, 2015, directed the opposite parties/Judgments Debtors to comply with the order dated 19^th August, 2013 vide which the complaint was allowed.  Hence, this revision.

8.      It is material to mention here that the car was repaired as per order of this Commission and certificates (Annexure P/5 and P/5A) were issued declaring the car trouble free. Taking advantage of the fact that the appeal was dismissed, though on technical ground being barred by time, at the instance of complainant, during the hearing of execution application, the District Forum sought the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, who stated to have pointed out certain defects, which inter alia also included the defect in Horn Assembly, Music System and Suspension System etcetera. It is not disputed that the car has run more than one lakh kilometers. Some wear and tear was bound to take place in routine which cannot be termed as manufacturing defect.

9.      Once the repair has been carried out under the order of this Commission to the satisfaction of the complainant and certified by two engineers, then pointing out certain defects by Motor Vehicle Inspector, whose qualification is not even known, would be misuse of the process of the system. As a matter of fact, opposite party/petitioner has already complied with the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by District Forum under orders of this Commission during pendency of appeal.            

10.    In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the interim order dated August 28^th, 2015 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the execution application stands dismissed being satisfied.  

                                                                                                                  

Announced 03.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL