Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he had purchased one Eicher Truck Pro 1110 H CBC bearing RC No.PB-10-GK-0193 bearing Engine No. 138063, Chassis No.127665 from Opposite Party No.1 and said vehicle was financed from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and Opposite Party No.1(a) is the manufacturer of the said truck. After some days, said vehicle started showing faults and then the vehicle was brought to Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 could not properly repaired the same, however, it started showing major defects while the engine of the vehicle is in operation. The complainant brought the defects in the vehicle in question to Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such, the complainant suffered mental as well as physical pain, agony and harassment at the hands of Opposite Party No.1. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay Rs.3 lakhs i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, financial loss and mental agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is totally false and frivolous. The complainant has failed to produce any material evidence on judicial file regarding his claims/ allegations. The present vehicle is manufactured as per BS-IV norms and each and every action is controlled by consors and special training is required to understand the function of vehicle as compared to earlier vehicles on roads. It is totally wrong that there is any manufacturing defect and the complainant has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. The complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect is available in the vehicle as neither any expert report nor any other convincing material evidence has been placed on record. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 also taken up same and similar as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.RA and Ex.RB alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and close the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that the vehicle so purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 is having manufacturing inherent defect as said vehicle started showing faults and due to this, the vehicle was brought to Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 could not properly repaired the same, however, it started showing major defects while the engine of the vehicle is in operation. The complainant brought the defects in the vehicle in question to Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. As such, the complainant suffered mental as well as physical pain, agony and harassment at the hands of Opposite Party No.1. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to produce any material evidence on judicial file regarding his claims/ allegations. The present vehicle is manufactured as per BS-IV norms and each and every action is controlled by consors and special training is required to understand the function of vehicle as compared to earlier vehicles on roads. It is totally wrong that there is any manufacturing defect and the complainant has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. The complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of manufacturing defect is available in the vehicle as neither any expert report nor any other convincing material evidence has been placed on record. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove that there occurred any problem/ defect in the vehicle in question. Moreover, the complainant has nowhere brought these problems/ defect in question in the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1 nor produced any job sheet in this regard or any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, neither the complainant has ever produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr (1 (2010) CPJ 19 NC for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in he vehicle made in the complaint. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove any defect/ problem or manufacturing defect in the car in question. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
8. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Dated: 28.06.2022.
