Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/28/2016

Narender Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.Yadav

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.     28 of 2016

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                09.02.2016

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                           04.12.2023

 

Narender Singh son of Sh. Ram Kumar R/o village Rajgarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         Supreme Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Proprietor (authorized Dealer-Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.).

 

2.         Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Sector-5, IIE, SIDCUL, Haridwar-249403 through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. V.P. Yadav, Advocate for complainant.

        Sh. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for OP No.1.

        OP No.2 already exparte vide order dated 18.07.2016.

 

ORDER:

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

1.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a vehicle Mahindra & Mahindra Bolero DI, bearing Engine No.GHF4D69075, Chassis No.MA1XA2GHF5D48906, Model 2015 on 02.07.2015 from OP No.1 in a sum of Rs.6,47,000/- vide invoice No.INV1616C000294.  Complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle since its purchase as its breaking system was not working properly, breaking pipe touched with the silencer gromatic and damaged the breaking pipe on 23.07.2015. So a complaint was made on customer care of OPs as well as to OP No.1, who did necessary repairs. However, again the breaking pipe damaged on 29.07.2015. Complaint was made to OP No.1 but of no avail. Complainant has submitted that he had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and  he has suffered loss due to non-proper running of the vehicle.  Legal notice dated 26.08.2015 to the OPs qua the present dispute was also  sent but they did not pay any heed to his genuine requests. Complainant has submitted that in such a situation there was always apprehension of accident with the vehicle.  Complainant has submitted that the act & conduct of OPs amount to deficiency in service resulting into mental and physical harassment besides monetary loss. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs.6,47,000/- alongwith interest @ 18%, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as losses suffered by complainant due to negligent conduct of OPs, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                     OP No.1 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising objections qua cause of action and locus standi, time barred and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the defects raised by the complainant were not manufacturing defects rather those were due to negligence and ignorance of the driver of vehicle. However, the defects qua breaking system etc. on 23.07.2015 were removed free of costs and thereafter also on 29.07.2015 and all the services done on the vehicle were to the satisfaction of complainant. The answering OP has denied that complainant purchased the said vehicle for commercial use rather it was for private use which is clear from registration certificate of the vehicle.  OP has submitted that complainant used the vehicle for paying passengers as well as used it as rough and tough.  Further the vehicle, after accident, had brought to OP No.1 for repair on 01.10.2016 and till the time the vehicle had been plied 96977 kilometer which itself reflects that the vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect.  In the end, prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence of complainant, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-13 were tendered and closed the evidence on 21.01.2019.

4.                     No evidence tendered on behalf of OP No.1 despite availing sufficient opportunity, as such, the same was closed by Court vide order dated 17.03.2023.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record carefully.

6.                     From pleadings of complainant, the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes but no any document has placed on record by complainant to show that the vehicle was registered for commercial purposes which goes against the case of complainant and thus he does not come under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased on 02.07.2015 and by 01.10.2016 it had been plied 96977 kilometers which means that the vehicle was not having the alleged manufacturing defect, however, there may some minor defects which were rectified by the OPs. Complainant to rebut this fact that as to how the vehicle plied for such a large kilometers within a time span of about 1 ½ years has not placed on record any cogent and convincing evidence.  

7.                     After going through the record which include the documents pertaining to the purchase of vehicle as well as its job sheets, we do not see any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and thus no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Taking a lenient view, no cost has been imposed while dismissing the complaint. 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:04.12.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission,Bhiwani.