Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/153/2019

Birbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mahadev Singla

01 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.153 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:09.04.2019.

Date of Decision: 01.05.2023.

 

Birbal Singh son of Mam Chand resident of Ward No.14 Geeta Colony, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

1.Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Through J.P.Punia, Manager, Jamalpur Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

2.Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jamalpur Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad.

 

          ...Opposite Party.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.Mahadev Singla, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Sudhir Narang, Advocate for OPs.

                  

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle Alto K-10 VXI, bearing registration No.HR23H-3642,  from Op No.1 on 31.12.2017 which was got insured under 0 debt scheme by Ops with New India Assurance;  that the vehicle was having one year guarantee/warranty with a facility of three free services; that on 10.03.208, the vehicle in question met with an accident, which was taken to the agency on 11.03.2018; that the Ops after keeping the vehicle with them for about 1 ½ months handed over the same to the complainant with assurance to remove/fix the defects which are left in it; that on checking, the complainant noticed many defects with regard to denting/painting  as well as noise and vibration, therefore, the complainant again visited the Ops after 15/20 days; that again the Ops kept the vehicle in question with them for 5 days and returned it back with assurance that all the defects have been fixed; that after driving the car in question, the complainant again noticed that the vehicle in question was still having the same defects for which it was taken to the Ops; that the Ops did not do the needful and failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite several requests, therefore, legal notice was sent to the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs is clearly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                The Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, locus standi, estoppal and maintainability etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself got insured the vehicle with New India Assurance Company; that the Op No.1 has no concern with the repair of the vehicle being sales manager; that detailed reply has been sent to the legal notice sent by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of answering Op. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the compliant has been made.

3.                Op No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and maintainability etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself got insured the vehicle with New India Assurance Company; that the vehicle bearing registration No.HR23H-3642 was brought in the workshop firstly on 11.03.2018 and then on 12.03.2018; that job card was also issued to the complainant; that after checking the vehicle, the complainant was intimated that due to non-availability of the parts the repairing work would get much time, therefore, the vehicle was handedover to the complainant on 23.04.2018 instead of 10.04.2018 after doing the needful; that the complainant again brought the vehicle to the workshop on 29.07.2018 for second free service; that after getting the needful done, the vehicle was handedover to the complainant on the same very day; that the complainant again brought the vehicle to the workshop on 21.09.2018 with complaint opf leakage of engine oil; that the defects were fixed besides other routine check up and cleaning; that on 26.12.2018, the complainant again brought the vehicle to the workshop for third free service and further the complainant again brought the vehicle to the workshop on 08.01.2019; that each and every time the grievance of the complainant was redressed and all the necessary works were done as per the free service rules. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 4.                         In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 alongwith documents Annexure C2 to Annexure C8. On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops has tendered affidavits of Sh.J.P.Punia, as Annexure R1 and Sh.Shakti Singh, workshop Manager as Annexure R2 alongwith documents Annexure R3 to Annexure R11.

5.                Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing registration HR23H-3642 from Ops which was got insured by them under zero debt insurance facility but the Ops did not repair the vehicle in question which was taken to them on 11.03.2018 after the accident despite the fact that the accident had happened during the subsistence of the policy in question.   

7.                Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of Ops that the proper service was given to the complainant on each and every occasion and the vehicle in question was repaired and handedover to the complainant upto his satisfaction. In support of his arguments he drew the attention of this Commission towards the Satisfaction note Annexure R11 duly signed by the complainant with date. It has been further argued that the complainant has not placed on record any report of expert showing that the vehicle in question is/was having defects, which he has allegedly mentioned in the compliant.

8.                          It is a settled principle of law that it is the duty of the complainant to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence without taking the benefit of the weakness of the other party. In the present complaint, the complainant has not led any cogent and reliable evidence to reach at any conclusion that any of the Ops are deficient in providing service and are indulged in unfair trade practice. Further the satisfaction note Annexure R11 is enough to show that the vehicle was repaired and handedover upto the satisfaction of the complainant as and in token thereof, he has placed his signature with date (21.09.2018) at the bottom of this document.  The present issue is with regard to defect in the vehicle, therefore, in order to resolve it,  the expert opinion could have been crucial but it is strange that the complainant has neither placed any report of the expert on the case file nor moved any application for getting the vehicle in question examined through an expert. Though the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he had purchased a vehicle from Ops but there is nothing on the record to show as to whether the vehicle was new or old one. Further, the complainant has not placed on case file any document to show that as to what amount of claim has been paid to the Ops for the repairing of the vehicle and even the complainant has also not made the insurance company as party in the present complaint.

8.                                 In view of the above mentioned reasons/discussions, we do not find any merits in this complaint, as the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of cost, as per rules, and thereafter, the case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after necessary compliance. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein.