Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                             Complaint No. : 254.

                                                                             Instituted on     : 06.06.2018.

                                                                             Decided on       : 15.04.2019.

Dr. Vijay Dangi, age 38 years, daughter of Sh. Jaivir Singh, R/o H.No. 30, Type-IV, MDU, Rohtak.

                                                                             .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Srishti Hyundai, Jind Bye Pass road, Opposite New Power House, Rohtak, through its Manager, Rohtak.

                                                                             ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Yogender Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party..

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased Hyundai i10 and got vehicle registered vide registration No. HR-15A-7722 and the complainant got insurance of the said vehicle. That on 14.05.2018, employees of the service center came to the house of the complainant and took the above said vehicle for service, but mechanical defect was not removed properly by the service center, then on 15.05.2018 said employee again visited the house of the complainant for the same issue and took the vehicle. On 16.05.2018 the complainant went to the service center for taking the car. It is alleged that the complainant found that the tyre of the said vehicle had been changed by the opposite party, there were Bridgestone’s tyre in the said vehicle, but the opposite party changed the same by firestone. Moreover, the complainant had a complaint regarding the seat belt but the same was not repaired/changed by the opposite party. The complainant made a complaint in this regard and submitted her grievances to the opposite party, but no positive response was given in this regard. On taking test drive, complainant was shocked that brakes were not functioning properly and due to this., mishap took place whereby the door glass of the said showroom was broken.. The complainant and opposite party moved the cross complaints, but no action was taken by the police upon the same till today. It is further alleged that when the complainant demanded her car, the opposite party refused to give the same and instead of this, opposite party used abusive language. It is further alleged that the opposite party asked the complainant to firstly submit Rs.2,50,000/- then they would handover the car in question. Now, the car in question is retained by the opposite party. That the act of opposite party is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such, it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to give the car to the complainant and pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that it is true that on 14.05.2018, the opposite party received a call from the complainant that her vehicle got mechanical breakdown. After which the person deputed by the opposite party collected the keys of the car from the complainant from her residence and thereafter, necessary repairs were done and the car was handed over to the complainant on the very same day. It is further submitted that on 15.05.2018, the opposite party again received a call from the complainant for pickup of her car for service from her residence upon which the car was picked up by the opposite party at 09.50 a.m. and was brought to the service station of the opposite party where the said car was serviced. The complainant was informed to take the delivery of her car and on 16.05.2018, the complainant came to the service station and after seeing the pre-invoice, asked for inspection of the vehicle in question upon which Sunil Service Advisor showed her the car and after seeing her car, she alleged that the front tyre of her car has been replaced upon which the relevant CCTV footage was shown to the complainant which clearly showed that none of the tyres were replaced by the opposite party. After that complainant threatened the employees of the opposite party. It is further submitted that after a lot of persuasion, the complainant told that she will firstly take the test drive of her car and thereafter, she will make the payment. The complainant took the car out of the service station and instead of going straight towards the main gate, she turned the car towards right side i.e. towards the showroom area and then she speeded up the car by driving rashly and negligently and hit directly into the glass door of the showroom. However, the car was stopped by Sunil Service Advisor, who applied handbrake. The matter was reported to police by the opposite party at the very same time, but the police did not register the FIR against the complainant, however, DD was entered in Police Post Gaukaran, Rohtak. That all the said facts of the complainant were recorded in CCTV Cameras installed in the premises of the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party.

3.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 11.10.2018. Ld. Counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on dated 07.03.2019.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          At the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the opposite party has placed on record, newspapers ‘Rohtak Bhaskar’ dated 06.04.2019 and 11.04.2019 as Annexure-A and Annexure-B respectively. Perusal of record reveals that complainant has not placed on record any evidence to prove that  the mechanical system of the car of the complainant was not properly working and due to which brakes of the vehicle failed as no such evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. Moreover, perusal of photographs and CD placed on record by the respondent itself shows that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent because the break system and another mechanism of the car was in proper system at the time of incident. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

15.04.2019.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member