Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/90/2020

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme Mobiles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ms. Naresh Kumari

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.      

         

                                                                   Complaint No.: 90 of 2020.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 15.12.2020.

                                                                   Date of Decision: 09.08.2024.

Sunil Kumar son of Umed Singh, resident of village Charkhi, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                                                                       

                                      Versus

1.       Supreme Mobile Ltd. (authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra) Sales, Spares, Workshop, Loharu Road, Bhiwani through its General Manager.

2.       Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Farm Equipment Sector Gate No. 02, Akurli Road, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101, Maharashtra (India).

                                                                              …...Opposite Parties.

 

                             COMPLAINT UNDER THE

     CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Dharampal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Shri R. K. Badal, Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

OP No. 2 already exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

                    Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Scorpio from OPs on 12.11.2012 for an amount of Rs. 10,56,500/- and registration No. HR-19E-0081 has been got issued from registration authority.  It is averred that the OPs had assured that if any manufacturing defect will occurred in the vehicle in that event defective vehicle will be subject to replacement.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect from date of its purchase and he had told the OPs about the same on its first service.  It is further averred that there was a problem in modulator as well as in clutch and many wires of the vehicle were also damaged.  It is further averred that on 19.11.2023, the complainant has got done his first service from the OPs and at that time narrated the OPs about all the manufacturing defects and the OPs have assured that all the problems will be rectified and charged Rs.3040/- from the complainant.  It is further averred that all the problems in the vehicle remained as it is and after that the complainant had visited the workshop of the OPs on many dates from 16.3.2013 to 28.10.2015 and OPs have charged a sum of Rs.71,492/- in total from the complainant on pretext to resolve the manufacturing defects of the vehicle.  It is further averred that on 14.3.2015, the complainant wrote an application to OPs asking to rectify the problem in modulator and clutch as these problems had occurred in vehicle right from the date of purchase and even after so many repairing and services of the vehicle.  It is further averred that lastly on 28.10.2015, the complainant had approached the OPs and asked to rectify the problems and also moved an application to the OPs, but the OPs did not rectify the problems of vehicle.  It is further averred that the complainant had made call on Mobile No. 09501911985 with Mr. Rahul, who was service head of the OPs company at Chandigarh office.  But all in vain and problem remained as it was.  It is further averred that on 6.11.2015 the complainant went to Delhi-Gurgaon and when he was returning and reached near Navodaya, Kiloi, District Jhajjar, all of sudden vehicle of the complainant caught fire.  It is further averred that a DDR No. 26 dated 6.11.2015 was registered with the Police.  It is further averred that vehicle of the complainant caught fire due to manufacturing defects and due to sole rash and negligent act and conduct of the OPs.  It is further averred that prior to above incident the complainant had visited the workshop of the OPs several time in order to replace the vehicle, but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request.  It is further averred that due to incident of fire, complainant had suffered lot of monetary loss as well as loss of business and property, ATM Cards, luggage, mobile etc.  It is further averred that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 71,492/- charged by the OPs, Rs. 50,000/- due to loss of accessory, Rs. 80,000/- spent on obtaining RC of vehicle, Rs. 20,000/- cost of mobile and Rs. 40,000/- which the insurance company paid deficient of insured amount and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, humiliation and dismay from the OPs.  It is further averred that a legal notice has been served upon the OPs, but to no effect.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP No.1 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering OP is simply a authorized dealer looking after sales, spare workshop at Loharu Road, Bhiwani on behalf of Mahindra and Mahindra.  It is further averred that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the answering OP on 12.11.2012 and as per guidelines, the first, second and third services of the vehicle might have been conducted by the complainant on or before completion of prescribed kilo-meters in the warranty period, but the complainant himself to get the free services in time.  It is further averred that the complainant did not produce the vehicle on running of 5000 kms for getting free service, however, the same was produced on 19.1.2013 for second service on completion 9622 kms and thereafter for 3^rd free service on completion of 30346 kms instead of 17689 kms.  It is further averred that during the period of second and third free services, complainant has not lodged any complaint regarding any defects/problem in modulator as well as clutch of the said vehicle.  It is further averred that the complainant had disclosed the defects on 8.8.2014 on completion of 81880 Kms of the vehicle with the answering OP, however, the vehicle was examined and sound in modulator was noticed, which was rectified with entire satisfaction of the complainant, who signed the declaration while taking delivery of the vehicle in question.  It is further averred that on 16.3.2013, 31.5.2013, 22.11.2013, 21.1.2014, 8.1.2014 & 29.4.2014, there was no complaint on the part of complainant in the vehicle when the same was produced with the answering OP.  It is further averred that it was the complainant, who did not adopt the proper guidelines and instructions contained in the warranty card and failed to produce the vehicle in time for getting free service.  It is further averred that the vehicle was not produced on 28.1.2015 with the answering OP.  It is further averred that the legal notice was replied on dated 25.4.2016.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 despite service and OP No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide its order dated 19.04.2021.

4.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and closed his evidence on 30.1.2023. 

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A, document Ex. R1 and closed his evidence on dated 6.10.2023.

6.                We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by both the parties as well as the material aspects of the case very carefully.

7.                The only plea taken by the complainant is that the vehicle in question was having some manufacturing defects and the same were not removed by the OPs despite charging Rs.71,492/- in total on various dates and due to which the vehicle caught fire and the insurance company had paid less claim amount to the complainant.  But the complainant has failed in producing any cogent and convincing documentary evidence to prove his case beyond shadow of doubts.  The complainant in Para No. 7 of complaint has himself admitted that the insurance company has paid the less claim to the tune of Rs.40,000/-.  So, it is clear that the loss occurred due to fire in the vehicle has already been settled and paid by the insurance company to the complainant.  The complainant has no where placed on record report of any engineer to prove the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question.  In our view, it is mandatory for the complainant to prove his case i.e. the fact of manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question by leading some cogent and convincing documentary evidence, but he failed to do so.  Therefore, presumption must be drawn against the complainant and in favour of the OPs.  Moreover, the loss in the vehicle in question due to fire has already been settled by the insurance company.

 8.               Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the OPs have rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.