Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/436/2012

Pawan Kumar S/o Samay Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikrmjeet Singh S/o Jaspal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Sharma

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No. 436 of 2012.

                                                                                   Date of Institution: 07.05.2012

                                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.04.2017

Pawan Kumar aged about 27 years son of Sh. Samay Singh , resident of village & P.O. Thana Chhappar, Tehsil jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                    ..Complainant

                     Versus

1. Vikrmjeet Singh s/o S. Jaspal Singh, Proprietor Meet Motors near Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Raj Vehicles (P) Ltd. Hira Bag, Rajpur road, Patiala, (Punjab).
3. Rahul Motor Garage near Jain Marbles, Yamuna Nagar road Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
4. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Gate Way Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 039.

                                                                                                    ..Respondents

 

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

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

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…………..MEMBER

 

Present:Sh. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Ms. Sonia Rohilla, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Respondent No.2 defence struck off.

              Respondent No. 3 already ex-parte.

              Sh. V.K. Arora, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.4.

 

ORDER    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                        The complainant has filed this complaint 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 four wheeler Make Mahindra Mini Van bearing registration No. HR58A-5223 (corrected later vide order dated 03.02.2017) to earn his livelihood for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- from the respondent No.2 Raj Vehicles Private Limited (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) through OP No.1 Vikramjeet Singh on 19.08.20121. Thereafter, complainant got first service of the vehicle in question on 16.09.2011 from OP No.3 i.e. Rahul Motor Garage, Jagadhri who charged Rs. 910/- from the complainant. Again, the complainant got second service of the vehicle in question on 09.10.2011 from Op no.3 and paid Rs. 910/-. When, on 16.11.2011, the complainant was coming from village Kalawar to Chhappar while driving the vehicle in question, the said vehicle got some defect and stopped on the road with noise. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Op No.1 on telephone, who advised him to take his vehicle for repair to the service centre of OP No.3. Accordingly, the complainant brought the vehicle in question after loading the same in some other vehicle and after checking the vehicle, the Op No.3 told to the complainant that vehicle has some manufacturing defect in the engine and has got seized and he is unable to repair the same and asked the complainant to take the vehicle to Tirupati Automobiles, Saharanpur, which is the nearest authorized dealer of Op No.4. Accordingly, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in question from Tirupati Automobiles and paid Rs. 2650/- but the vehicle in question failed to start again as there was a technical and manufacturing defect in the vehicle. After that, on advise, the complainant got repaired the vehicle in question from village Dhareri Jattan,Bahadurgarh, workshop Rajpura Road, Patiala  and his vehicle remained under repair w.e.f. 16.11.2011 to 29.11.2011. After that, on 29.11.2011 complainant contacted the OPs No.1 & 2 and on their directions complainant took his vehicle in the service station of Op No.2 and after 4-5 days, the OP No.2 repaired the vehicle of the complainant against the payment of Rs. 4166/- and delivered the same on 06.12.2011 to the complainant. Even, thereafter the defects were not fully removed from the vehicle in question. The complainant approached the OPs No. 1 to 3 again and again and requested to do the needful but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs No.2 &4 to replace the defective four-wheeler with new one or to refund the sale price of the vehicle in question and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable against the Op No.1; complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint against OP No.1; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that earlier the Op No.1 was runing his business under the name and style of Meet Motors at Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through which the Op No.1 earned livelihood for himself and his family and the complainant may had any animosity towards the Op no.1. However, there is no relationship of any kind between the complainant and the OP No.1. Hence, the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and for want of knowledge. However, it has been mentioned that no transaction of any kind has taken place between the complainant and the Op No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 appeared but failed to file written statement, hence his defence was closed vide order dated 13.01.2014.

5.                     OP No.3 failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2013.

6.                     OP No.4 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; there is no relationship whatsoever between the complainant and OP No.4 and the complainant has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint qua Op No.4; the transaction between the Op No.4 and Op No.2 are on principal to principal basis. The Op No.2 places bulk orders for vehicles and answering Op supplied vehicles in large number; complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the vehicle in question has been purchased from the Op No.2 from Patiala; the complainant has twisted and concealed the true and material facts and on merit it has been admitted that OP No.2 is authorized dealer of Op No.4 but the Op No.3 is not the authorized service  Centre of Op No.4. It has been further submitted that OP No.4 enquired from Op No.2 in this regard and based on the information made available by the Op No.2 to OP No.4, it is submitted that as per record of OP No.2, the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant vide bill dated 09.09.2011 as against 22.08.2011, alleged date of sale mentioned on the alleged bill. Further, it has been submitted that vehicle in question has not been serviced from the authorized dealer and for the first time it has approached the authorized dealer only 16.11.2011 when the Odometer reading was 19034 Kms with some running repairs. In this case, the complainant has not approached the OP No.2 for getting the vehicle serviced. Further, it has been submitted that authorized dealer does the first three services free of costs except the charges for consumable items like engine oil, filter etc. As per company record and from an enquiry from the authorized dealer, it has been found that complainant has missed the mandatory four (4) services and has got the vehicle serviced only after running more than 30,000 Kms . Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect because the complainant was himself negligence in servicing the vehicle. Rest contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmeet as Annexure CW/A, Affidavit of himself as Annexure CW/B and documents such as photo copy of miscellaneous receipt bearing the name of Vikramjeet Singh as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of bill dated 09.10.2011 amounting to Rs. 910/- issued by Rahul Motors Garage as Annexure C-2 Photo copy of visiting card of Rahul Motor Garage as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of transportation bill dated 16.11.2011 as Annexure C-4 and C-5, Photo copy of repair bill of Tirupati Automobiles Saharanpur amounting to Rs. 2650/- as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of repair bill issued by Raj Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. Patiala as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of transportation bill dated 29.11.2011 as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of transportation bill as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of purchase bill issued by OP No.2 as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of RC as Annexure C-12 and closed his evidence.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 made a statement that written statement filed by her be read as evidence of Op No.1.

9                       Counsel for the OP No.4 tendered into evidence warranty policy manual as Annexure R4/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4. 

10.                   We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

11.                   It is not disputed that complainant purchased the four-wheeler make Maxximo Mini Van bearing registration No. HR-58A-5223 for a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- on 22.08.2011 which is duly evident from the photo copy of invoice/purchase bill Annex. C-10 from the Op No.2 i.e. Raj Vehicle Private ltd., Patiala. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Shri Ram General Insurance Company which is duly evident from the copy of insurance policy Annexure C-11.

12                    The only version of the complainant is that vehicle in question became defective on 16.11.2011 when he was coming from village Kalawar to Chhappar and for its repair he took the vehicle in question to Tirupati Automobiles, Saharanpur alleged authorized service station of OP No.4 and he spent Rs. 2650/- on its repair.  Further, the complainant has mentioned that even then technical and manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question could not be cured for which he got repaired the vehicle in question from village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh, Workshop Rajpura Road, Patiala and paid Rs. 4166/- to the workshop situated at Bahadurgarh, Patiala. It has been further alleged by the complainant that even after repair from the workshop of village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh (District Patiala), the vehicle of the complainant was not fully repaired and vehicle keep on making noise and consuming more fuel and Mobil oil. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the repair bills Annexure C-2, C-6 and C-7 and argued that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect, hence, the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the cost of the vehicle in question or to replace the vehicle with new one.  

13.                   Learned counsel for the Op No.1 argued that OP No.1 has no concern whatsoever with the complainant and the receipt Annexure C-1 has been prepared falsely just to create the jurisdiction of this Forum otherwise there was no transaction between the complainant and the Op No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that as per this receipt the vehicle in question has been shown handed over on 19.08.2011 whereas as per invoice/purchase bill the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.08.2011 from Op No.2 i.e. Raj Vehicles Private Ltd., Patiala. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1.

14.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.4 argued at length that complainant has totally failed to prove that vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect as neither any expert report/mechanic report has been placed on file nor any cogent evidence has been placed on file to prove the same. Learned counsel for OP No.4 further argued that even the complainant did not bother to implead the Tirupati Automobiles, Saharanpur where he spent Rs. 2650/- vide bill dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure C-6). Learned counsel for the OP No.4 further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.2 i.e. Raj Vehicles Private Ltd. Patiala (Punjab) and also got repaired the vehicle in question either from Saharanpur or village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh Patiala (Punjab). Learned counsel for the OP No.4 further argued that mere placing on file repair bills amounting to Rs. 4166/- (Annexure C-7) and bill of Rs. 2650/- (Annexure C-6), it cannot be said that vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect whereas in the respective bills it has been clearly mentioned that these bills are only for running repairs.

15.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the complainant has totally failed to prove that the vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect as neither any expert report/ mechanic report has been placed on file nor any application under section 13(1)( c) of the Consumer Protection Act was moved by the complainant for examination of the vehicle in question from any technical expert or Industrial Training  Institute at the initial stage. It is pertinent to mention here that an application for appointment of local commissioner was moved on 16.02.2016 i.e. after a period of near about 4 years and 6 months from filing of the present complaint which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2016. Even, the complainant has not placed on file any job sheet/job card vide which he availed three(3) free services provided by the manufacturing company at the time of purchase of new vehicle.

16.                   We have perused the repair bills Annexure C-6 vide which the complainant has got repaired his vehicle from Tirupati Automobiles, Saharanpur but the complainant has not impleaded the said service Centre as party and no relief has been sought against him. Similarly, we have also gone through the bills amounting to Rs. 4166/- Annexure C-7 issued by Raj Vehicle Private Ltd. Patiala. This bill is also for running repair.

17.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the complainant has miserably failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 27.04.2017.          

                                                                                              (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                                               DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                                                                       

                                    (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)        (S.C. SHARMA)

                                    MEMBER                                         MEMBER