Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/45/2017

Mahinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme auto mobile. - Opp.Party(s)

N.K Katiwal

23 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

        CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.  :  45 of 2017

                            DATE OF INSTITUTION             :          08.03.2017                                                  DATE OF ORDER                         :  23.08.2024

 

 

Mahender Singh son of Sh.  Raje Ram R/o village Dhab Dhani, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.       Authorized Dealer, Supreme Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. Loharu Road, Bhiwani.

 

2.       Head Office, Supreme Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. 473-74, Automobiles Market, Hisar.

 

3.       Managing Director, Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bander, Mumbai-400039.

 

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

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. N.K. Katiwal, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP No.3.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 28.10.2016, complainant purchased a Three Wheeler/Auto bearing chasis no. GSJ 82287 and temporary registration no. HR99AAA 9985(T), from OP No.1 and at the time of purchase, 8 months guarantee was provided by the OP No.1. It is alleged that OP No.1 did not issue any sale letter so complainant could not get the vehicle registered with authorities concerned. The vehicle got defects in engine and some other parts, so it was brought to OP No.1 but it did not do any needful. So, legal notice dated 28.11.2016 was served upon OP No.l but despite that the defects were not completely removed and it was handed over to the complainant. Complainant has submitted that due to defects in the steering of the vehicle, it turned turtle on 13.01.2017 and passengers in it received serious injuries. So, matter was brought into the notice of OP No.1 and the vehicle was left with the OP No.1. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to refund Rs.30,000/- deposited as advance money at the time of purchase the vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% or to supply a new Three-wheeler. Further to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment besides Rs.5100/- as litigation charges.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint, locus standi, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that answering OP sold the vehicle to complainant being distributor of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. It is submitted that original invoice and sale letter were handed over to the complainant at the time of possession of the vehicle under his signature. The vehicle was free from any defect, however, on the complaint, service was done and complainant was satisfied with it and put his signatures on the job sheet. It is submitted that no notice from complainant side was received rather Sh. Parveen Kumar, Body Shop Manager issued letter dated 06.08.2012 to the complainant asking him to furnish registration certificate of the vehicle to claim the amount from insurance company but he failed to produce the same. As such, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.3 filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, cause of action and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that manufacturer provides warranty of the vehicle and not the guarantee written in the owner’s manual. It is submitted that all the transactions of the vehicles between OPs No.1 &2 and the answering OP is ‘Principal to Principal’ basis, as such, there is no privity of contract between answering OP and the complainant. As such, it is submitted that the answering OP is not responsible for any act, conduct, omission or commission by its dealer. It is urged that sale and service of the vehicle is entirely prerogative of the dealership. However, the liability of answering OP is limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 No evidence produced on behalf of complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities, as such, its evidence was closed by Court vide order dated 22.08.2023.

5.                 In evidence of OPs No.1 & 2, affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Mahender Pratap Singh, authorized signatory of OPs alongwith documents Annexure-A, Annexure-B and Annexure-D to Annexure-G as well as documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 were filed and closed the evidence on 21.05.2024.

6.                 Ld. counsel for OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on 21.05.2024.

7.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 It is admitted by OP No.1 that it had sold the vehicle in question to the complainant on 28.10.2016 and is also clear from copy of vehicle dispatch challan, placed on record from complainant side at the time of filing of the complaint. Complainant side has also placed on record a document pertaining to warranty obligation, reveals that there was warranty of 8 months qua repair or replace of part(s) concerned, free of costs, which are considered to be the cause of malfunction. As per service job sheets and other service documents (Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8) reveals that the vehicle became defective within two months of its purchase.

9.                 Complainant has alleged in the complaint that at the time of purchase he paid Rs.30,000/- to the OP No.1 but there is no document on record from complainant side, however, this fact specifically has not been denied by any of the OPs in their written version or reply to legal notice. Therefore, it is presumed that the complainant has paid Rs.30,000/- to the OP for purchase of the vehicle.

10.               After having heard learned counsels for the parties and going through the entire record, we have observed that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the OPs despite making various repairs. Therefore, the complainant was entitled to get replaced the vehicle with new one or to get refund of the money so paid by him. In such a situation, we are of considered opinion that the OPs being manufacturer and seller of the vehicle in question were deficient in providing proper services to the complainant which caused him financial loss  as well as mental pains and physical harassment for which he is also entitled to be compensated.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization subject to completing all necessary formalities by complainant qua preparing of R.C. & transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of OP(s), and no charges will be taken from complainant for this purpose. 

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) as compensation for harassment.  

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs.Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                     In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced.

Dated:23.08.2024.