Haryana

Sonipat

89/2014

SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

   Sonepat.

                            

 

                             Complaint No.89 of 2014

Instituted on:02.04.2014

                             Date of order:21.08.2015

 

Suresh Saroha District Information and Public Relations Officer, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

The Authorized officer Swan Motors Pvt. Ltd., near Fly over, Rohtak road Workshop E-13, Industrial Area, Sonepat.

 

                                      ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Sh. Ashish Garg Adv. for respondent.

         

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the vehicle no.HR69A/8000 was sent to the respondent for service on 20.9.2012.  When the mechanic of the respondent inspected the vehicle, driver of the complainant informed that there is a problem in the engine and overhauling of the engine is required.  The complainant was surprised to know that the said vehicle needed overhauling of engine in a such short span of time.  However, the vehicle was left at the workshop of the respondent for repair, which was done with the assurance that now the vehicle will not create any problem.  But the office driver was shocked to see that again after completing approximately 10000 km the same problem arose.   The office driver approached the respondent who overhauled the  engine.    But after completing 128830 KM the same problem arose.  The respondent has also sent the estimated bill of Rs.55000/- as service/repair charges and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that on the request of the complainant, the respondent has dismantled by the respondent and estimate for repair of the vehicle including overhauling with replacement of defected parts which costs as approximately Rs.65000/- (+10%) was issued to the complainant vide letter dated 24.9.2012.   The respondent has repaired the vehicle of all the customers with optimum satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that on the request of the complainant, the respondent has dismantled by the respondent and estimate for repair of the vehicle including overhauling with replacement of defected parts which costs as approximately Rs.65000/- (+10%) was issued to the complainant vide letter dated 24.9.2012.   The respondent has repaired the vehicle of all the customers with optimum satisfaction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         On the other hand, the complainant has submitted that the respondent has not acted as per its assurance and commitment that now the vehicle will not create any problem.  But it was totally a false assurance because for the last many months, the vehicle was being held by the respondent on the pretext of servicing/repairing of engine etc. It is also submitted that after 60400 km the vehicle started giving problem and was sent to the respondent’s workshop.  After completing 128830 km, the problem regarding level of mobi-oil in engine was getting down, arose. The vehicle was sent for repair to the workshop of the respondent and the same was sent back after changing the mobi-oil and clearing the filter with a promise that it will not create further problem.  After running approximately 8000 km, the vehicle started creating the same problem.  From the last many months, the said vehicle was being held by the respondent workshop on the pretext of servicing/repairing of engine etc.

         In our view, the document Ex.C20 fully supports the case of the complainant.

         The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, but the respondent is controverting the same.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to overhaul the engine of the complainant and to deliver the vehicle in running condition to the complainant without charging any charges from the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  21.08.2015