Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/184/2019

Bhumi Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager , MG Motors - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 23 of 2019

                                                         Date of Institution: 30.1.2019

                                                          RBT No. 184 of 21.10.2019

                                                          Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

 

Bhumi Dutt son of Sh. Chand Ram, resident of VPO Dhangar, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

Versus

1. The Manager, MG Motors, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Pin No. 127306.
2. The General Manager, Head Office, TATA Motors Ltd. 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82, Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.

 

•  

 

                   COMPLAINT UNDER THE

                   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

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

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Verma, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   Sh. N.S. Vijayrania, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:-

              

              

1.              Brief facts of the present complaint, according to the complainant, are that he had purchased Goods Carrying vehicle, Model No. TATA ACE ZIP manufactured by Tata Motors bearing Registration No. HR-61D-1568 from the OP No. 1 on 19.5.2018. It is averred that on the date of purchase i.e. on 19.5.2018, the said vehicle after going only 5 KM, got deteriorated and its engine could not be started, which caused great loss of money and business to the complainant. It is averred that the said vehicle got deteriorated number of times in the middle of the way and the complainant had to take the said vehicle to various authorized dealers in Charkhi Dadri, Hisar and Rohtak by towing with another vehicle. Several complaints were made but the problem was not resolved by the OPs and it is averred that the vehicle is standing in the workshop of MG Motors Rohtak since 6.11.2018 without repairs. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant prayed for directions against the OPs to replace the said vehicle of complainant and to pay compensation account of business loss, mental agony, harassment etc besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.            Upon notice, the OP No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statements separately. The OP No.1 in its written statement averred that the complainant has made up a false and concocted story as the complainant had not made any complaint to the OP No. 1. It is averred that the complainant only got two services of his vehicle from the workshop of the answering OP No.1 on 14.9.2018 & 17.11.2018. On 14.9.2018, the warranty jobs were provided and on 17.11.2018, electrical jobs were done by the workshop free of costs but it is the complainant who has not taken back the delivery of vehicle in question and the same is still parked in the workshop of OP. It is averred that the complainant also did not deposit the loan installments and a sum of Rs. 68,809/-is due towards the complainant. As such, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and accordingly dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP No.1.

3.             In its written statement, the OP No.2 who is manufacture company of the vehicle in question, averred that as per record maintained by the answering OP, the complainant did not report any major problem in the vehicle in question and the instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is averred that in the present case, there has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is also averred that the complainant has not mentioned the dates when the vehicle in question was brought for number of times at the authorized workshops of the answering OP. It is averred that the answering OP is not responsible for any business losses as per terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant has himself abandoned the vehicle in question with malafide intention and as per record of the answering OP, all the repair jobs were carried out under warranty period. As such, it is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and accordingly dismissal of complaint has been sought by the OP No.2.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence on 2.3.2021.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No. 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-2/A and closed the evidence on 16.9.2022. However, the OP No. 1 failed to tender any evidence and therefore, the evidence of OP No.1 was closed by court order on the same day on 16.9.2022 by the order of this Commission.

6.             We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely. It has been observed that the OP No. 2 has also filed its written submissions on 23.8.2023.

7.            On perusal of whole case file, we have observed that the complainant has placed on file his own affidavit (Ex. CW-1/A) and documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9) but we have observed that there is nothing on record of the case file to prove the allegations of complainant mentioned in his complaint that there was any kind of alleged manufacturing defect in the said vehicle purchased by him, on the basis of which the OPs can be held liable for issuance of directions of replacement of said vehicle in favour of complainant. We have observed that the complainant has only placed on file his own affidavit, legal notice and its registered postal receipts, envelope containing legal notice which returned back due to incomplete address of the opposite party, insurance policy, RC and a MG Motors Workshop vehicles Entry & Exist Checklist document (Ex. C-6) and summary of loan and pattern of monthly installments documents (Ex. C-7 & C-8).

8.             On perusal of above mentioned documents, we are of the considered view that the documents submitted by the complainant above are insufficient to prove the allegations. As per terms and conditions of the warranty as mentioned by the OP No.2 in its written version duly supported by way of affidavit of Sharmendra Chaudhary, Deputy General Manager of OP No.2 (Ex. R-2/A whereby the OP No. 2 has performed its obligations as envisaged in Owner’s manual, we are also of the considered view that it is the complainant who has breached the terms and conditions of the warranty and despite the vehicle was ready for delivery, complainant instead of taking delivery of vehicle, abandoned the vehicle in question. As per the contents of affidavit (Ex R-2/A), it is also clear that as on 17.11.2018, the vehicle had covered 14510 within a span of five months ipso facto make it clear that the vehicle does not suffers from any defect as alleged by the complainant.

9.             We are also convinced with the above submissions of learned counsel for OP No. 2 duly supported by affidavit (Ex. R-2/A) and hence, taking the contents of this affidavit as true and correct and taking into consideration the document submitted by the complainant himself as Ex. C-6 (which is a MG Motors Workshop Vehicle Entry & Exist Checklist) and showed Kms Reading as 14055 on 6.11.2018, we are of the considered view that the vehicle ran 14055 Kms as on 6.11.2018 and 14510 Kms as on 17.11.2018 and therefore, the vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect.

10.             Further we are of the considered view that the terms and conditions of the warranty are binding upon the complainant and the opposite party Tata Motors. It has been observed that the complainant has specifically admitted the fact of leaving the vehicle, after it had developed alleged defect and despite removing the same, he did not lift the vehicle from the spot. Thus this is a clear cut case of abandonment of vehicle. Further it has been observed that the complainant did not prove nor sought assistance of this Commission to examine any expert having technical knowledge to give a definite opinion as to the fact that the vehicle was having any defect. Therefore, proof of manufacturing defect by way of expert evidence is also a sine qua non.

11        Under the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, we are of the considered view that no liability can be fastened on the opposite parties, when no negligence or deficiency in service is proved on their part. We further find no merit in the present complaint. Resultantly, we dismiss the present complaint of complainant with no orders as costs, being not proved. OPs is directed to release the vehicle to the complainant without charging any payment.

12.           Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.

13.           File be consigned after due compliance.