State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Parkash Yadav vs Hira Automobiles on 15 May, 2018
Daily Order 2Nd ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.68 of 2018 Date of Institution : 09.02.2018 Order Reserved on : 19.04.2018 Date of Decision : 15.05.2018 Om Parkash Yadav son of Sh. Hardayal Yadav, resident of House No.545-C, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala. Appellant/complainant Versus Hira Automobiles, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Managing Director. Respondent/Opposite Party First Appeal against order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala. Quorum:- ShriGurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member. Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:- For appellant : Sh.Om Parkash, in person For the respondent : Sh. Mukesh Garg, Advocate 2. First Appeal No.91 of 2018 Date of Institution : 19.02.2018 Order Reserved on : 19.04.2018 Date of Decision : 15.05.2018 M/s Hira Automobiles Limited having its registered office at Rajbaha Road, Patiala (Punjab) through its Authorized Representative/Manager. Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Om Parkash Yadav son of Sh. Hardayal Yadav, resident of House No.545-C, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala (Punjab). Respondent/Complainant First Appeal against order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala. Quorum:- ShriGurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member. Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:- For appellant : Sh. Mukesh Garg, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Om Parkash, in person RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL MEMBER ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 02.01.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.450 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (herein referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed and directed the Op to rectify the defect in the car in question, free of cost and make the same roadworthy. Secondly, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. Thirdly, to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. OP was further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of order.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant purchased a car make ERTIGA-VDI-SHVS MARUTI bearing Registration No.PB11 BV 8606 manufactured by Maruti Suzuki Limited from OP vide invoice No.350-258 dated 22.10.2015. After some time of its purchase the battery of the car started giving leakage problem. He approached OP who suggested to contact their workshop. Time and again he visited the workshop of OP and during each visit different remarks were given by their engineers as below:-
Date Remarks 21.12.2015 Battery found discharged, battery charged, check OK 15.01.2016 Battery kept to send Exide House for warranty replacement, if required 19.01.2016 Battery charged by Exide company, battery checked and found OK 08.02.2016 Vehicle checked for battery discharged problem. Vehicle kept under observation-Unapproved fitments affected the performance and safety. Suggested to keep the vehicle in original specifications.
The complainant requested the OP time and again for rectification of the problem but the workshop mechanics could not rectify the same. The OP failed to resolve/rectify the problem of the car. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum for directions to the OP as under:-
To resolve/rectify the problem of the car or to refund Rs.9,40,000/-, the price of the car along with cost of accessories amounting to Rs.60,000/- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment. To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer; the claim of the complainant exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the proper and necessary parties. On merits, purchase of the car was admitted. The complainant brought the vehicle in the workshop for general check-up of the same. OP never denied to provide the services as per warranty policy. It always entertained the complainant as a customer, always satisfied him and every time provided its best services. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. All other averments made in the complaint were denied in toto and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Before the District Forum the parties led their respective evidence.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA Affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence of the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of OP along with documents Ex.OP1 to OP13 and closed the evidence of the OP.
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written version filed by OP evidence and documents brought on record the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
First Appeal No.68 of 20188. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
9. It was argued by the appellant/complainant in person that he repeatedly went to OP for rectification of the leakage problem in the battery of the car in question but the same could not be rectified by the OP despite repeated repairs. In the first instance OP tried to absolve its liability by saying that there is some defect in the battery causing the said defect. The battery was got checked from Exide company and they found the battery OK. After that the OP tried to shift the blame on the complainant by saying that the said defect was occurring due to the installation of the non-MGA camera whereas the said camera was purchased by the complainant vide bill dated 24.10.2015 Ex.C-9 from the OP and the same was fitted by the OP in the car itself. As such, the OP is liable to rectify the defect in the car in question. He also prayed to enhance the compensation charges and litigation expenses to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- respectively.
10. The counsel for the Op argued that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP. The District Forum has wrongly held that OP is liable to rectify the defect occurred in the car in question either by repairing or replacing the defective parts, free of cost to make the car roadworthy and the OP is liable to compensate the complainant. No doubt the camera was purchased by the complainant from the Op vide Bill dated 24.10.2015 but the complainant has been using the non-MGA camera in his car and the Op does not know the whereabouts of the camera sold by the OP to the complainant. when the car was brought in the workshop non/MGA camera was already fitted in the car. The same fact has been admitted by the complainant in his affidavit. However the complainant alleged that the same was replaced by OP, just to save its skin. The complainant is alleging the defect in the earth leakage in the car but he has not brought on record any evidence to prove this fact and finally prayed to dismiss the appeal and the complaint of the complainant.
11. As per the version of the complainant the car was purchased by him on 22.10.2015 and on 24.10.2015 the accessories were also purchased from Ops including camera serial No.74K09-150 for Rs.7990/- and it was got fitted from the OP in the said car. After that the car was brought to the workshop of OP on various dates. Initially they pointed out that there is a problem in the battery and the matter was also referred to Exide company they also check the battery with regard to manufacturing defect in the battery but they stated that battery is OK, therefore, there will be some other defect in the car which the OP is not taking care of and was postponing the matter to the complainant with the excuse that there is a defect in the battery. Once the report with regard to the battery came as OK then they took the plea that Non-MGA camera is there fitted in the car which is causing some problem in the working of the car. In case the camera was purchased from the shop of OP and it was got fitted by them, there is no reason the complainant will remove that camera and will fit another non-MGA camera in the car.
12. In the jobcard Ex.C6 it has been mentioned that non approved fitments affects the performance and safety of the vehicle in original specification and it was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2016 Ex.C-7 that the vehicle was checked by their team as per MSIL procedure. During the investigation they found that rear back camera fitted in the car is Non-MGA which was disconnected by their team. However, no serial number of the camera have been mentioned whether it is the same purchased from the Op or it is another camera. Therefore it is doubtful that in case the camera was purchased from the service station of OP No.2 itself then it cannot be Non-MGA and cannot cause any problem in the car. Therefore, there can be any other problem in working of the car.
13. Already order has been passed by the District Forum to rectify the defect in the car in question free of cost and compensation and litigation cost has also given to the complainant which seems to be genuine. Over and above the rectification of any defect in the car to be conducted by OP No.2 a safeguard can be given to the complainant with the direction to the Ops that after repair/checking of the car give a certificate that the car in question is roadworthy and it must be counter signed by any authorized engineer of the Maruti Suzuki Limited.
14. Sequel to above, we dispose of the appeal filed by the complainant that apart from the direction already given by the District Forum, after rectification of the defects if any in the vehicle, OP No.2 will give a certificate that car in question is roadworthy duly counter signed by a authorized engineer of Maruti Suzuki Limited.
First Appeal No.91 of 201815. Since the appeal (No.68 of 2018) filed by the appellant/complainant has been disposed of in which the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld rather some additional directions have been given to the OP. We does not see any circumstance to rectify the order passed by the District Forum in favour of OP. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the appeal filed by the Op (Appeal No.91 of 2018), the same is hereby dismissed.
16. The appellant/OP had deposited an amount of Rs.7,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal in FA No.91 of 2018. This amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the dispatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court for release of the above amounts and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
17. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 19.04.2018 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
18. Copy of this order be placed in FA No.91 of 2018.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) May 15 ,2018 Member PK/-