STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  : 985 of 2016

Date of Institution: 19.10.2016

Date of Decision : 12.12.2017

Satbir Sharma son of Sh. Rajbir Sharma, resident of House No.792, Sector 55, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                             Appellant-Complainant

 Versus

1.      M/s Triumph Auto Private Limited, Mathura Road, Mujessar, Faridabad through its Managing Director.

2.      M/s Tata Motors Limited, One Indiabullls Center, Tower 2A & B, 20^th Floor, 841, Senpati Bapat Marg, Jupiter Mills Compound, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013 through its Managing Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

Argued by:          Shri R. K. Narang, Advocate for the appellant

                             Shri Vikram Rana, Advocate for the respondent No.1

                             Shri Vivek Khadwal, Advocate for the respondent No.2  

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

This complainant’s (Satbir Sharma) appeal is directed against the order dated September 15^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, ‘District Forum’) whereby Triumph Auto Private Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘dealer’) was directed to repair the engine of the vehicle bearing No.HR38QT-5251; Rs.11000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.      On August 09^th, 2010 the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle for Rs.6,83,512/-.  The vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited.  The vehicle was having extended warranty upto 1,50,000 km and charged Rs.7500/- from the complainant. Some defects were developed in the vehicle.  The vehicle remained with the dealer from April 10^th, 2010 to April 20^th, 2010. The complainant did not agree to pay the repairing charges. He got the vehicle repaired from Baba Motors, Tikona Park, Faridabad and paid Rs.2,00,000/- approximately.  The complainant requested the dealer to pay the aforesaid amount but to no avail.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The dealer, in its, written version pleaded that the dealer never offered extended warranty to the complainant.  On April 10^th, 2011, the complainant was advised to wait because the dealer had to get the approval for extended warranty but he took the vehicle back stating that he would get the vehicle repaired from outside.  Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it was prayed for dismissal. 

4.      Tata Motors Limited-opposite party No.2 (manufacturer), in its, written version pleaded that the warranty offered was for 24 months or 50,000 kms, whichever was earlier.  The vehicle had covered 64872 kms as on April 10^th, 2011.  The warranty had already expired.

5.      The dealer advised the complainant to wait because the dealer had to get the approval for extended warranty but the complainant took the vehicle stating that he would get the vehicle repaired from outside.  The complainant himself was not interested in getting the vehicle repaired from the dealer.  He failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   In this view of the matter, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.