National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gursimran Singh Walia vs Jaycee Automobiles Pvt Ltd.& 2 Ors. on 29 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 18/03/2013 in Complaint No. 46/2012 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. GURSIMRAN SINGH WALIA S/O. SH. KAWALJIT SINGH WALIA, PRESENTLY R/O. HOUSE NO. 523, SECTOR-36 B, CHANDIGARH PUNJAB ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JAYCEE AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.& 2 ORS. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, (AUTHORISED DEALER OF AUDI INDIA)PLOT NO. 171, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I, CHANDIGARH PUNJAB 2. M/S. AUDI INDIA, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT/ MANAGING DIRECTOR/DIRECTOR, 3 NORTH AVENUE, LEVEL-3, MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA, KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 3. M/S. AUDI INDIA, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER/ DIRECTOR, A DIVISION OF VOLKSWAGEN GROUP SALES INDIA, PVT. LTD., " MANUFACTURE" SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD., (SAIPL) AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : MR. PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA For the Respondent : For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Nidhi Mehrotra, advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Ekta Bhasin, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Dispensed with
Dated : 29 Jan 2016 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18-03-2013 passed by the Learned State Commission in Complaint No. 46 OF 2012 - Shri Gursimran Singh Walia Vs. Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd & Ors., by which complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant is one of the directors of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. and complainant for his personal use purchased Audi car from opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 1 for a sum of Rs.37,70,000/- and vehicle was delivered on 15.04.2012. on the day of delivery complainant noticed sound variation in the vehicle and after that from time to time found many defects in the vehicle. From time to time it was taken to workshop and got it repaired. It was further submitted that on opening gear box it was found broken and even after replacement of gear box car was giving vibration. Leather upholstery of the car went shabby day to day. There were many other defects in the vehicle. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party no. 1 resisted complaint, admitted sale of car but denied any defects. It was further submitted that car was purchased by M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Ltd. which is a juristic person and it was not purchased by complainant so complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that complainant was recommended to stop the vehicle when defects are found but as he kept on driving damages occurred in the vehicle. It was further submitted that from time to time repairs/replacements were made free of cost. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 2 also took similar defense and further submitted that State Commission has no territorial jurisdiction and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party no. 3 was proceeded ex-parte. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint, against which this appeal has been filed.
3. Respondent No. 3 was dispensed with.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no. 1 & 2 finally at admission stage and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for inspection of vehicle by independent expert/lab and in turn dismissing complaint, hence appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and State Commission be directed to get vehicle examined from expert. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence appeal be dismissed.
6. Learned State Commission dismissing application observed as under:--
"As per Section 13(d) of the Act, it was incumbent upon the complainant to file an application before this Commission, for sending the vehicle, in question, to an appropriate laboratory, as envisaged under clause (c), and the complainant was required to deposit the requisite fee as would be specified, for payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis of test in relation to the vehicle, in question. However, rather than filing such an application along with the requisite fee, the complainant has filed somewhat a different application seeking directions to the opposite parties to do so, which course is not permissible under any provision of the Act. In these circumstances, the present application filed by the complainant, being not maintainable, is dismissed."
When complainant moved application for getting vehicle mechanically examined from expert on 15-01-2012 learned State Commission should have decided this application separately instead of dismissing this application while passing impugned order that too after four months of this application so that complainant could have approached this Commission for Redressal of his grievance or in the alternate should have allowed application for better appreciation of alleged defects in the vehicle. Learned State Commission should have allowed application subject to depositing requisite fee by complainant for seeking expert opinion regarding defects in the vehicle. Learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application in the impugned order and in such circumstances appeal is to be allowed and application for getting vehicle examined from expert is to be allowed subject to depositing requisite fee by complainant.
7. Consequently appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and order dated 18-03-2013 passed by the Learned State Commission in Complaint No. 46 of 2012 - Shri Gursimran Singh Walia Vs. Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd & Ors. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to get disputed vehicle examined by expert at the cost of complainant after due notice to opposite party and decide complaint afresh after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 04.03.2016.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER