Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/319/2015

Jogesh Kumar S/o Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Prop. Pandit Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Varinder Kumar Saini

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

Complaint No.319 of 2015.

Date of institution: 28.08.2015

Date of decision: 11.11.2016

 

Jogesh  Kumar aged about 35 years, son of Shri Ajit Singh, resident of village Mankian, PO Ramgarh, District Panchkula.

 

                               …Complainant.

                                              Versus

1. The Proprietor, Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Govindpuri, bypass Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. The Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India, Limited, Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                             …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. Virender Kumar Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Rajiv Chawla, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already given up v.o.d.  31.08.2015

ORDER

 

1                      The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a Swift D’zire, VDI Maruti new car from OP No.1, who is authorized dealer of OP no.2. From the very beginning i.e. from the date of purchase, complainant is getting his car serviced from the OP No.1 including free as well as paid services. On 23.06.2015, complainant got serviced his car and paid Rs.6595/- against the cash memo No.BC-15003150 dated 23.06.2015, but on the same day, when he was going back to Panchkula from Yamuna Nagar the car in question of the complainant started giving some problem in connection with the AC, as the water  pipe of the AC of the car started leaking and due to said leakage water started coming inside the car and this problems occurred after the service of the car from the OP No.1. It was astonishing for the complainant that due to negligent and deficient services of the OP No.1, the said car totally became out of order on the very next day i.e. 24.06.2015 even the car in question started giving polluted air (Black Dhuan) from its engine. Thereafter, complainant brought his vehicle at the agency of OP No.1 several times but no use and till date, the car in question is out of order. Complainant requested so many times to the OP No.1 to either to replace the car in question with new one and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss occurred to the complainant due to the deficient service provided by the OP No.1. Even, a Registered Legal Notice was served but all vain. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.1; the liability of the OP No.1 is governed by the Maruti/Suzuki India Limited Warranty policies; complainant has filed the present complaint after expiry of warranty which had been concluded on 09.10.2014 at a mileage of 41503 Kilometers, complainant is without jurisdiction; complaint is totally baseless and abuse of process; complainant has  no locus standi and on merit it has been mentioned that car in question was serviced at the work-shop of OP  No.1 on 23.06.2015 at the mileage of 63465 kilometers, after that complainant visited the work shop on 06^th July, 2015 with the problem of “entering water from front wind shield” of the car in question and till that time car in question had run approximately 1191 kilometers after its previous visited to the workshop of the OP No.1. The engineer thoroughly investigated the problem as alleged by the complainant and after its inspection no water leakage was found in the AC System of the car and it was observed by the Engineers that the water pump of the car in question had been weared out. Upon this, the complainant was advised to replace the same. The said water pump was normal wear and tear part which was not covered under MSIL Warranty Policy. The cost of the said part was to be paid by the complainant but he totally refused to give his consent and while leaving the workshop, the complainant threatened the workshop Manager with dire consequences. As per vehicle history of the car in question, as on 06^th July, 2015, complainant had run the car upto 1191 kilometers and as on 18.09.2015 he had run the car approximately 5202 kilometers. In this way, car in question had covered 6400 kilometers since the alleged problem. It has been specifically denied that car in question remained out of order as alleged in the complaint. Lastly, it has been prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     Notice was issued to the OP No.2 also, but on 31.08.2015 counsel for the complainant made a statement recorded separately in which the OP No.2 was given up.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and bill dated 23.06.2015 as Annexure C1 and postal receipt as Annexure C2, C3, Legal notice as Annexure C4 and photocopy of RC as Annexure C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Jitender Sharma, Director as RW/A, vehicle history as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that after getting the service on 23.06.2015 the car of the complainant started giving some problem in connection with the AC as the water pipe of the AC of the car started leaking and due to the said leakage water started coming inside of the car and further the car in question started giving polluted Air (Black Dhuan) from its engine which was not rectified by the OP which constitutes the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

9.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued at length that a false complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate to the OP No.1. In fact there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. The problem in the car was duly investigated by the engineers of the OP No.1 and there was no water leakage from the AC System of the car in question. In was observed by the Engineers that the water pump of the car in question was weared out and the complainant was advised to replace the same but he totally refused. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 draw our attention towards the history of the vehicle as Annexure R1 and argued that car in question had covered 6400 Kilometer since the alleged problem, it is not possible if there was any breakdown in the engine and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing the parties we are of the considered view that there was no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. The complainant has not placed on file any report of service engineer to prove his version. Even, the complainant has not moved any application under Section 13(1) (c) for appointing any Local Commissioner to examine any expert in support of his version. The complainant has placed on file only a bill dated 23.06.2015 as Annexure C1, in support of his case but no report of any expert has been placed on file to prove the manufacturing defect in the car in question. Even, the complainant has also not placed on file any subsequent bill for repairing or replacing the defective part of the car in question and in absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to hold that car in question was having any defect and complainant is entitled to get any relief.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, there is no merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 11.11.2016.                                                                  (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                         PRESIDENT

                                                                                         DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER