Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/20

Yogesh Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit K Dhupar

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 20 of 03.04.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    25.07.2019

 

 

Yogesh Malohtra, son of Sh. Parmanand Malohtra, resident of Mohalla Qila Ward No.4, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. The Raj Motors, Authorized Dealer Mahindra & MahindraLimited, NH21, Chotti Gandhon, Chandigarh Road, Ropar.

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mahindra Towers, GM Bhosale Marg, Worli, Mumbai 

   ...Opposite Parties

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh.Deepak Logi, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.P. No.1 exparte

Sh.K.S. Longia, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.    Yogesh Malohtra, son of Sh. Parmanand Malohtra, resident of Mohalla Qila Ward No.4, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the Mahindra TUV300 T6+ with new one or to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant to the O.Ps. along with interest @ 18% per annum; to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation/consolidated damages to the complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 18% per annum; to award any other, additional, interim, alternate relief which this Hon'ble Forum deems fit, just and proper for the complainant in this case. 

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on the allurement of O.P. No.1, the complainant had purchased a new car TUV300 T6+ for a sum of Rs.8,86,000/- and the same was financed from State Bank of India, ADB Branch, Bassi Pathana. On 14.12.2017, on calling upon by the O.P. the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,86,000/- by way of bank transfer of money in the account of O.P. While taking the car delivery, the complainant asked the O.P. to issue him the car Invoice but the O.P. refused to issue the same and told him that they would gave the same later on as the same was required for Car Registration Number. After delivery of the car, the complainant noticed that the clutch of the car was not functioning properly as it had developed unusual noise/jerks on running of the engine. The defect was brought to the notice of O.P. whose engineer after examining the defect told him that the clutch is behaving erratically because of the new engine and it would automatically adjust/become defect free after covering some mileage. After repeated visits/requests by the complainant, the O.Ps failed to repair/replace the vehicle in question. Hence, this complaint.

3.    On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.07.2019.

4.    On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply stating therein that the relationship between the manufacturer and dealer is on principal to principal basis meaning thereby that the dealer is authorized to purchase the vehicles manufactured by the O.P. No.2 in bulk quantities and in turn to resell them to their own customers. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect. It is settled law that in order to establish manufacturing defect expert opinion is required. In this case, no expert opinion/report has been produced by the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Santhanam, General Manager, Customer Care, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/G and closed the evidence. 

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Deepak Logi, argued that the complainant purchased a vehicle from the O.P. No.1 against a sum of Rs.8,86,000/- but the OP issued the receipt of only Rs.8,19,189/- There is no explanation qua the residuary amount on behalf of OP No.1, which amounts to deficiency in service. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.      

8.    Sh. K.S. Longia, counsel for OP No.2 argued that there is no allegations against OP No.2 relating to the manufacturing defect or any deficiency at any time. When the complainant has not sought any relief against OP No.2 then the complaint against OP No.2 deserves to be dismissed.

9.    Complainant pleaded the purchase of the vehicle from the OP No.1 i.e. Raj Motors and its office is in District Ropar. Further complainant placed on file the various documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10, which proves complainant is resident of District Ropar and office/showroom of OP No.1 is also in this District. So, the complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

10.  Coming to the deficiency in service, the forum is to appreciate whatsoever, the documents are placed on file by the complainant. OP No.1 served through notice but none appeared i.e. why OP No.1 is proceeded against exparte. The complaint is heard exparte.

11.  Ex.C1 is the challan/gate pass issued by the Raj Motors, which proves the vehicle was sold with registration No.PB12T4609T. Ex.C2 (Service Bill) is again for the receipt of Rs.3000/- then Ex.C3 (GST Inovice) proves payment of Rs.8,19,189/-. Ex.C6 is repair order. During the course of arguments, complainant counsel tendered Ex.C11 (Certificate of the bank) which proves the payment of Rs.8,86,000/- for the purchase of vehicle. After going through the evidence on file and appreciating the arguments, complainant has been able to prove payment of Rs.8,86,000/-. At the same time, the complainant proves the receipt of Rs.8,19,189/- i.e. price of the vehicle. For the remaining amount OP No.1 did not turn up despite notice to the O.P. No.1 to explain his status. In this way, the complaint deserves to be allowed.

12.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.P. No.1 to explain this forum within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order the difference between Rs.8,86,000 and Rs.8,19,189 to satisfy the claim of the complainant, failing which the complainant is held entitled for Rs.66,811/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 15.12.2017.  

13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.25.07.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER