Haryana

StateCommission

A/255/2020

FORCE MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANDEEP - Opp.Party(s)

N.S.JAGDEVA

11 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.255 of 2020

                   Date of Institution:15.06.2020

Date of Decision:11.09.2024

 

1.      Force Motors Limited, Mumbai Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune 411035 through its Managing Directors.

 

2.      MM Automobiles Delhi Road, Near Police Line Rewari, Tehsil & District Rewari through Force Motors Ltd., Authorised dealers.

 

..…Opposite Parties/Appellants

Versus

 

Mr.Sandeep S/oShri Gugan Ram aged 30 years R/o Village Buroli Sub Tehsil Dahina District Rewari.

 

..…Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Shri  N.S.Jagdeva counsel for the appellants.

                   Shri Prashant Sethi counsel for the respondent alongwithMr.Sandeep-respondent in person.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Delay of 59 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      Opposite Parties-Appellants, have filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with following directions:

“Resultantly, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to make the vehicle defect free by replacing the parts, if any, at their own cost within 45 days of submitting the vehicle by the complainant in the workshop of the opposite parties within 15 days.  Since the complainant has suffered a lot, he is allowed compensation of Rs.One lac against the said opposite parties to be paid within the above stipulated period. Ordered accordingly.”

3.      The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased vehicle bearing Model No.B008540061401 of white colour from the opposite party No.1 on 21.10.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- with one year guarantee.  It was alleged that vehicle sold by OP NO.1 developed a technical problem soon after purchase and started showing red light while starting  the vehicle early in the morning and it started only after a lot of effort and in the early morning it started spewing diesel and giving out white smoke.  He approached OP No.1, where engineer replaced some parts  and said that problem will not occur again.  Even after this, the same missing problem occurred in the complainant’s vehicle, so again he took the vehicle to OP No.1, where OP No.1 replaced some parts and said that there would be no problem in the future.  Again,  even after this, the complainant’s vehicle was not repaired and like everyday the problem of missing, showing red light or showing white smoke continued.    Despite several visits, the complainant’s vehicle was not repaired. Thus there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant sought repair of the vehicle or replacement of the vehicle with a new one or refund of its price. 

4.      Notice being issued, OPs appeared and filed the written statement.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, complainant not consumer, complaint false, frivolous and misconceived and commercial vehicle etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  On merit, itwas submitted that the vehicle was designed as a passenger vehicle. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle on 21.10.2017 from OP No.1. The said vehicle was a commercial vehicle and being used by the complainant to carry passengers from one place to another place on chargeable basis. The complainant was very irregular in availing the recommended scheduled services from the authorized dealer of this opposite party. The complainant himself failed to avail the mandatory service which was of foremost importance, 1^st and also 6^th services on prescribed period or kilometers, whichever was earlier, as mentioned in the service coupon book which was issued to him at the time of the delivery of the said vehicle. It was further submitted that vehicle was provided with Hi-Tech Rail system in the engine to meet the Govt. Regulations of Bharat Stage IV Commission for inspection and for the smooth running and common rail system, the clean diesel free from adulteration and water was essential. The complainant has himself neglected to the signal on the dashboard for draining the water accumulated in the fuel filter of the common rail system due to use of water mixed fuel and continued to drive the vehicle with water accumulation in fuel filter though specific provision is made in the vehicle for drainage of such water, which was necessary for safety of common Rail system and as such negligence of the complainant has badly affected the common rail system of the vehicle. There was no manufacturing defects in the said vehicle. The complainant himself avoided to pay his attention to the signal on the dashboard for removing the water in the common rail system and continued to drive the vehicle as it is and which has badly affected the Common Rail System of the vehicle. OPs never gave the guarantee of the vehicles at any time. OPs always gave the warranty of the vehicle.  The appellants observed that common rail and injectors were affected due to excess water entered into fuel system.  The complainant has taken the vehicle to the workshop of the OP NO.1 on 5^th July 2018 for complaint of engine misfiring and electronic diesel control lamp issue. After inspection, the complaint was forwarded to manufacturer. The team of the company inspected the vehicle of the complainant in his presence and found that water and rust found in the Common Rail System in the vehicle due to the contaminated fuel.  There was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Commission, Rewariallowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.03.2020 and relevant portion of the order is mentioned in para No.2 of the order.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appealseeking setting aside of the impugned order.

7.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal and that of complaint alongwith Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6  wasthoroughly perused andexamined.

8.      Learned counsel for the OPs-appellants vehemently argued that  there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.Further argued that complainant himself neglected to the signal on the dashboard for draining the water accumulated in the fuel filter of the common rail system due to use of water mixed fuel and continued to drive the vehicle with water accumulation in fuel filter though specific provision is made in the vehicle for drainage of such water, which was necessary for safety of common Rail system and such negligence of the complainant has badly affected the common rail system of the vehicle.   Learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint and set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal.

9.      On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that vehicle sold by OP No.1 developed a technical problem soon after purchase and started showing red light while starting  the vehicle early in the morning. Further argued that vehicle started only after a lot of effort in the early morning, it started spewing diesel and gave out white smoke.  Complainant again and again approached OP No.1 for repair of the vehicle, however the OP No.1 replaced some parts but the problem of the vehicle persisted.  The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10.    It is not disputed that complainant purchased the vehicle from the OP No.1 on  21.10.2017.  It is not disputed that due to missing problem in the vehicle, some parts of the vehicle were replaced by OPs but the problem was as it is.  It is also not disputed that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Perusal of the file shows that despite repeated repairs, the vehicle displayed the same problem of missing and red light with white smoke.   Perusal of the file also shows that joint inspection was carried out  at the Lucas India Private Limited, the proprietar manufacturer, inspected the common Rail system of the vehicle and it was observed that water and rust were found due to use of contaminated fuel.  Perusal of the job cards Ex.C-10 dated 07.07.2018, Ex.C-11 dated 16.07.2018, Ex.C-12 dated 24.07.2018  and Ex.C-15 dated 06.08.2018, clearly shows the missing problem in the vehicle. Perusal of the record shows that the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the OPs several times but defects could not be removed.  The plea of the OPs-appellants was that complainant negligently used the adulterated fuel, is not tenable in the eyes of law because owner of the vehicle will never fill up the adulterated fuel in the vehicle. The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Consumer Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by appellants at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be disbursed to complainant-Sandeep against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission as accordingly directed.

12.  

13.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

14.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

11^thSeptember, 2024          S.P.Sood                                                      T.P. S. Mann

                                                Judicial Member                                         President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)