Haryana

StateCommission

A/676/2015

HITESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRIUMPH AUTO PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHARMILA SHARMA

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.676 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 18.08.2015

Date of Decision: 16.09.2015

 

Mr.Hitesh Kumar, S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, R/o House No.853, Sector-28, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Triumph Auto Private Limited, (Passenger Car dealer) A Company incorporated and registered under 20/2, Mujessar More, Opposite Orient Fan  Factory, YMCA Chowk, Delhi Mathura road, Faridabad through its Director.

2.      M/s TATA Motors Limited, A Company incorporated and registered under the companies Act, 1956, having its Corporate office at 305 MG Road, south City 1, gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) through its Director.

3.      Mr. Kamal Manager-M/s Triumph Auto Private Limited, Plot No.20/2, Majessar More, Opposite Orient Fan Factory, YMCA Chowk, Delhi Mathura Road, Faridabad.

                                                                   .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he was planning to buy TATA Venture for his personal use.  Opposite party (O.P.) No.3, manager of O.P.No.1 offered TATA Venture which had already covered a distance of 5000 km. at discount price.  It was told by him that engine and body of the car were totally new and all the benefits such as warranty, guarantee and service would be extended.  As per his assurance he purchased that car against payment of Rs.Four lacs which was already registered in the name of one Manoj Kumar.  O.P.No.1 assured to get the registration transferred in his name.  When he was going to his house, car started creating noise and emitting great noise and smoke.  He made telephone call to O.P.No.3, but, he did not reply.  He took the vehicle to O.P.No.1 and was assured that all the defects would be removed.  As per recommendations of O.P.No.1 he took vehicle to M/s Tayal India Motors Private Limited authorized dealer of M/s Tata Motors Limited, but, the defect could not be removed.  The vehicle was suffering from the following defects:-

“1.     Clutch place is not working properly.

2.      Gear shifting is hard.

3.      AC cooling is insufficient.

4.      There is continuous leakage of oil.”

The defects were due to poor workmanship of manufacturer.  He tried his level best to get the defects removed, but, to no avail.  O.Ps. be directed either to return Rs.Four lacs or give some other vehicle besides compensation on ground of mental agony etc.

2.      All the O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting his averments.  It was alleged by O.P. Nos.1 and 3 that when car was sold it was clearly told that the same was not covered by warranty.  He purchased second hand car at the reduced value.  On 10.02.2012  complainant took proper road test alongwith mechanic and was fully satisfied with the performance.  After 15-20 days  he came to them about cooling problem he was advised to go to Tayal Motors because they were not authorized dealer of TATA motors.  On 22.04.2012 complainant again came to them and job card was issued about following complaint:-

          “Gear Shifting hard

          Clutch race

          Break check

          A/c cooling

          Meter check

          Coolant Check

          Oil leak from sump.”

Though the car was not covered with the warranty, but, they removed the defects free of costs as a goodwill gesture to the satisfaction of the complainant and he endorsed to this effect.  Objections about concealment of material facts and locus standi were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      O.P.No.2 alleged that it was not having any concern with this complaint because car was not covered by warranty and was not purchased through it.  They supplied car on principal-to-principal basis and were not responsible for this defect.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint  with following observations:-

“The necessary repair was done and afore-mentioned defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant by opposite party No.1 as evidence from job slip dated 22.04.2012 and satisfaction note dated 24.04.2012 which bears the signature of the complainant.  Neither any manufacturing defects has been pointed out nor proved by the complainant.  As such, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, complaint is dismissed.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Complainant has failed to show that car was covered by warranty.  He has purchased second-hand car knowing it fully well that it had already covered 5000 kms. He purchased this vehicle at the reduced rate.  Just on the basis of his averments it cannot be presumed that there was any warranty.  As per impugned order dated 15.06.2015 it is clear that the car has already been repaired free of costs and satisfaction note bears the signature of complainant.  It is nowhere alleged by the complainant in appeal that he did not sign the satisfaction note.  O.P.No.2 is manufacturer and is not concerned with this car because it is not covered by warranty. It is an unnecessary party.

8.      The learned District Forum has taken into consideration all these aspects.  There is no illegality in impugned order dated 15.06.2015.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

September 16th, 2015       Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                                Addl.Bench             

S.K.