Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/134/2021

Arvind Kr - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdev Sheoran

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

         CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. : 134 of 2021

                             DATE OF INSTITUTION            :           23.07.2021                                            DATE OF ORDER                        :             26.09.2024

 

Arvind Kumar son of Sh. Rai Singh R/o Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Supreme Mobile Private Limited, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Jagdev Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a car TUV 300 bearing registration no. HR-16T-4592, in the month of September 2017 having three years warranty and on 11.10.2017 also taken extended warranty of two years by paying extra amount of Rs.16,600/-.  It is submitted that on 04.03.2021, clutch of the car was not working properly so the vehicle was brought to the agency of OP, they assure to change clutch baring, clutch bleeder and clutch cylinder free of costs as the car was within warranty period. However, the OP prepared estimate of Rs.32,106/- of the car whereas, complainant had received a message on 05.03.2021 for Rs.4602/-. Complainant has alleged that the OP illegally charged Rs.32,106/- from the complainant despite the car being comprehensively insured. So, complainant got served legal notice dated 22.03.2021 upon the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.32,106/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 04.03.2021 till payment. Further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment besides Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.  

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of the complaint, jurisdiction, locus standi, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that clutch, clutch baring, its bleeder and cylinder are not covered in the warranty which itself explained in the warranty card. It is urged that OP is always eager to work to the satisfaction of every customer.  The extended warrant is also extended with the terms and conditions of first warranty as given by the manufacturer of the vehicle. The answering OP only do the compliance of such warranty given by manufacturer and the OP never given any assurance to the complainant beyond terms and conditions of the policy. In the end, it is stated that warranty or extended warranty is provided by the manufacture and it has no concern with the same. So, the alleged amount was rightly charged from the complainant. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, Op tendered in evidence affidavit of Mr. Mukesh Chhabra as Ex. RW/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-14 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties  and gone through the record carefully.

6.                 It is evident from insurance policy and document attached thereto (Ex.C-4 pg. no.42) that the car was under manufacturer extended warranty till 10.10.2022. For this purpose, a sum of Rs.16,600/- was paid by complainant on 11.10.2017 ( Ex.C-5).  The OP company has charged repair charges from complainant on the pleadings that the clutch and related work was not covered under the warranty clause. But it has not produced the document which specifically provides that the clutch and its related work was not covered under the warranty clause. It is well known that warranty clause does not come into play when there was abuse or misuse of the product. However, while denying the services to the complainant within warranty clause, it is nowhere mentioned by OP that the repairs was required due to misuse or abuse of the product by the complainant.

7.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that the repair charges of Rs.32,106/- were taken by OP company on the basis of bill dated 09.03.2021 (Ex. C-3). Since, the vehicle was under extended warranty till 10.10.2022, therefore, the complainant was entitled to get replacement of defective parts of the car till the expiry date of warranty period free of costs. Hence, denying such services to the complainant by OP being authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra-manufacturer of the car, is a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP company and thus it is liable to refund the repair charges to the complainant besides compensation for harassment.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

1. To refund Rs.32,106/- (Rs.Thirty two thousand one hundred six) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant 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 OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% 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 party 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:26.09.2024