DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.285 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06.07.2011
DATE OF ORDER: -13.12.2016
Kohar Singh aged 55 years son of Shri Mamchand, resident of village Durjanpur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Tridev Motors Private Ltd., Rohtak Road, Bhiwani (Haryana) through authorized signatory.
- Tata Motors Ltd. Passenger Car Business Unit, KD-03, Car Plant, Sector 15 & 15-A, PCNCDA, Chikhali, Pune-410501.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Jagdev Sheoran, Advocate proxy counsel of
Sh. Anand Dhayal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Parmar, Advocate proxy counsel of
Sh. K. Acharya, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 1 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he had purchased the Car Tata Vista Aura Q-Jet dated 16.12.2010 from OP no. 1. It is alleged that the breakpad of the vehicle of the complainant run for 10,386 KM and the complainant get it replaced and again after run about 10,000 KM the breakpad has to be got replaced by the complainant and similarly the complainant has to get replaced breakpad after the run of approximately 10,000 KM. It is alleged that the OP has assured him that the breakpad will run 30,000 to 40,000 KM and the company has given the warranty for the same. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. OP no. 1 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.08.2011.
3. On appearance, OP no. 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the break paddle is a rubber item which is not covered under warranty and if the vehicle is driven by putting pressure on the break paddle then the break paddle and break liner got it defective. It is submitted that the warranty do not cover normal wear and tear of the vehicle or any damage to the vehicle due to the negligent and improper operation of the vehicle. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned proxy counsels for the parties.
6. Learned proxy counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the breakpad of the vehicle of the complainant run for 10,386 KM and the complainant get it replaced and again after run about 10,000 KM the breakpad has to be got replaced by the complainant. Similarly the complainant has to get replaced breakpad after the run of approximately 10,000 KM. He submitted that the OP has assured him that the breakpad will run 30,000 to 40,000 KM and the company has given the warranty for the same.
7. Learned proxy counsel for the OP no. 2 submitted that this Hon’ble District Forum may decide the case on the basis of the reply filed by the OP no. 2.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant has not produced the warranty terms and conditions rather it has been placed on behalf of answering OP. During the course of arguments, the learned proxy counsel for the complainant asked to show the relevant terms and conditions of the warranty regarding the breakpad, but he could not show any term and condition of warranty for the breakpad. The OP has contended in his reply that the break paddle is a rubber item which is not covered under warranty and if the vehicle is driven by putting pressure on the break paddle then the break paddle and break liner got it defective. The warranty do not cover normal wear and tear of the vehicle or any damage to the vehicle due to the negligent and improper operation of the vehicle. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove that the break pad of the car in question was having any manufacturing defect. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 13.12.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh)
Member.
