Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 24 of 2015 Dr. Monika Deb, Krishna Charan Road (West), Silchar- 788005 ……………………… Complainant. -V/S- - M/S Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Sri Sushanta Kumar Basak Ramnagar, P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam O.P No.1. - Gereral Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Chandrapura Industrial Estate,
Holal- 389351, District- Panchmahal, Gujarat O.P No.2. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared:- Ms. Debomita Chakraborty & Arpita Barman Advocate’s for the complainant. Mr. Ajoy Kumar Roy, Advocate for the O.P.No.1 A.K. Azad Laskar Advocate for the O.P.No.2. Date of Evidence 27-06-2017, 03-01-2018 Date of written argument 16-03-2018 Date of oral argument 01-09-2018 Date of judgment 24-09-2018 JUDGMENT AND ORDER Sri Bishnu Debnath, - Dr. Monika Dey brought the complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against M/S Smart Motor Pvt. Ltd., Silchar and manufacture of Car, Name & Style of Car manufacture is General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Chandapura Industrial Estate, Panchamahal, Gujarat.
- Brief facts:-
The Complainant Dr. Monika Dey, purchased a car ‘Cruze’ of Chevrolet from Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd., Silchar (referred as O.P.No.1) on 04-11-2010. Regd.No. of the vehicle is AS-11/E-5047, Engine No.Z20S1380231K & Chasis No. MA6JF69DJAH008918. - Initially the battery of the vehicle went out of order within the warranty period. Accordingly, the battery was replaced. But after some days the vehicle started various problems. On complaint the O.P.No.1 repaired the same. But after some days of taking delivery of the vehicle it started various problems including problem with starting of engine. The O.P.No.1 repaired the problem on payment of charge. In that way the Complainant was facing problem with the vehicle on many occasion and in each occasion on complain the O.P.No.1 repaired the vehicle.
- Similarly, on 24/09/2014, while the husband of the Complainant was proceeding towards Silchar Medical College & Hospital by that car, the paid driver was driving it. But when reached near Surana Motors at Hailakandi Road, engine of the vehicle went off. Accordingly, on intimation the vehicle lifted to the workshop of O.P.No.1 and on inspection the O.P informed in writing that the vehicle started problem due to Battery spoil and remote control system. Since, that date the vehicle is lying in the workshop of the O.P.No.1. On 29-01-2015 the O.P.No.1 on telephone asked the husband of the Complainant that contact the dealer of battery but the Complainant did not take any step. However, on 02/02/2015 received phone call from M/S Sarada Sales Corporation, Sonai Road, Silchar that request has received from M/S Tarat Enterprise, Hailakandi Road, Silchar to provide a battery for the Complainant’s vehicle as per instruction of O.P.No.1. It is to be noted that M/S Tarat Enterprise is the CNF of Exide Industries Ltd.
- In such circumstances, the Complainant is compelled to file this complaint against the O.Ps for causing negligence, disservice etc.
- The O.P.No.1 in his W/S stated inter alia that allegation regarding disservice etc. is false, vague and fabricated. The O.P. stated that all the defect related to the aforesaid vehicle occurred just for the engaged driver, oil and battery problem and in spite of those the O.P.No.2 has given the best afford infavour of the Complainant. The O.P.No.2 in its W/S stated inter alia that the defect as stated in the Complaint are not relating to any manufacturing aspect rather, the problem caused to the vehicle due to voltage dropping in the battery.
- During hearing the Complainant submitted deposition and exhibited relevant documents. After closing evidence the engaged lawyer of the Complainant also submitted written argument. The O.P.No.1 also exhibited some documents. But no formal order is obtained from the court to accept the deposition. Anyhow, the O.P.No.2 did not submit any deposition. I have also not found any written argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps.
- Heard argument of both sides counsels and perused the evidence including written argument.
- In this case it is evidence from the evidence on record that since 24/09/2014 the vehicle is lying in the workshop of the O.P.No.1 because of the Complain of engine breakdown. Of course from the evidence on record it is revealed that prior to the above incidence the vehicle was taken to the workshop of O.P.No.1 for various problems and on each time O.P.No.1 repaired the vehicle and handed over the same to the Complainant. Now, the O.P.No.1 informed after inspection of the vehicle that the engine started problem due to voltage dropping of the battering. The Complainant is not specifically denying the aforesaid battery problem. That is why, as per instruction of the O.P.No.1 battery is required to replace but from evidence on record I do not find any co-operation from the Complainant to replace the battery.
- However, from careful perusal of the Complaint and deposition of the complainant it may be presumed that the Complainant tried to convince this District Forum that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But no such evidence is added to conclude that the vehicle is causing problems due to manufacturing defect.
- Hence, in this case I do not find any cogent ground to make the O.P.No.1 & 2 liable for deficiency of service towards the Complainant. So, this District Forum is declined to grant any relief to the Complainant except passing comment that the Complainant may approach the seller and manufacturer of the battery of the vehicle which has been replaced in earlier occasion.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest without any cost & relief. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 24th day of September, 2018.
| |