DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        RBT Complaint No. 441

 Instituted on:  26.11.2018

                                                                         Decided on  :  25.01.2023      

1. Sudesh Kumar S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal R/o H.no.74, Gurdarshan Nagar, Patiala.                                                                  

                                                   …. Complainant.                      Versus

1. Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ General Manager, Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala.
2. Benchmark Motors Pvt.Ltd., Having head office at Opp AEC, near Gurudwara, ThalTej Cross Road, Sarkhej Highway,Thaltej, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Through its Managing Director.

                                                            ….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                         : MEMEBR

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Deep Chand Goyal, Adv.              

For the Op.no.1        : Shri Ajay Chaudhary,Adv.

For the Op.no.2        : Exparte.

ORDER BY

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Commission.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that complainant had purchased a KWID RXT 1.0 AMT petrol Car from Op.no.1 which is a Branch Office of Op.no.2 vide an invoice number SAL-INV-PALA-17-000138 dated 31.03.2017 for Rs. 4,41,180/- and paid the amount by way of demand draft  issued by Canara Bank, Patiala.  Op.no.1 made a representation that the Car is a good quality and assured best after sales service and the said car was under guarantee for 2 years or 50,000KM whichever earlier. Complainant also purchased extended warranty of further 2 years. At the time of purchase the vehicle i.e. 31.03.2017 was showing 500 KM on the Odometer. The Complainant asked by the Officials that vehicle is being brought from Ambala and also vehicle was road tested. So, the car was used for 500KM. After some days, car started giving troubles . The cooling was not upto mark and some times even A.C. not cooling. Complainant approached to Op on 13.05.2017 for the service of the said vehicle and stated the problem regarding not cooling. Mechanic of Op told to complainant that the software of the car is old one and need up gradation and also updated the software and assured that the problem will be sort-out. The said car again developed different problem and complainant again approached to Op.no.1 on 27.07.2017 and stated the problem and Op.no.1 replaced/refit Pump Kit- water and engine coolant and assured that the said problem stands repaired. Car again developed a problem or being un balanced, free steering and bubbling while driving and car of complainant was brought to work shop of Op.no.1 on 22.05.2018 for repair. Again some parts were replaced being faulty and even complainant was charged for change of some parts (brake leathers) inspite of warranty.  On 05.09.2018 car again developed a starting problem and car of complainant was brought to work shop of Op.no.1. Again some parts were replaced being faulty and car was delivered back on 06.09.2018 after carrying out repairs. The Ops sold a faulty and used car to complainant and complainant is facing problem every day as the car is giving troubles since the day of purchase. Its parts are getting failed one by one and there is danger to life of complainant and his family due to faulty car sold by Ops. The complainant approached to Op and requested a number of times to replace the faulty car with new one as every time a new problem arises in the car and all its parts are failing one by one. But, the Op put off the matter on the one pretext or the other. Complainant also send an emails to Op. The Op are not replacing the car intentionally to get the guaranty period of vehicle lapsed. There is also deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complainant served a legal notice on 27.09.2018 to the Ops. Complainant suffered a great mental tension and harassment. Due to the illegal act of the Ops complainant has suffered a financial loss and prayed that the complaint be allowed and the Ops be directed to replace the car with new one or in alternative to refund the purchase money/Car price and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as mental tension, litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, Op.no.2 did not appeared and proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.03.2019. Op.no.1 has appeared and filed written reply and taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against Op.no.1 as no specific relief has been sought against Op.no.1. Op.no.1 is not a necessary party to the dispute.
3. On merits, Op no.1 alleged that complainant purchased the car after full research of the market and after taking the test drive and overall performance as well as smoothness and softness of steering wheel of the car. It is denied that at the time of purchase of the said vehicle i.e. on 31.03.2017 was showing 500KM on the odometer. All the remaining allegations are denied by the Op and prayer clause of the complaint is wrong and hence the same is liable to be rejected and prayed the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op.1 tendered into evidence Ex.Op-A affidavit of Sh. Neeraj Bansal, Manager of Op alongwith document Ex.Op.1 and closed the evidence of Op.no.1.
5. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer?
6. No doubt it is admitted fact that vehicle in question vide engine number E040131, model KWID RXT(O)1.0 AMT, Color Grey, Fuel used petrol year of manufacture is 2017, was purchased by complainant from Op.no.1. As per Ex.C-2 Tax Invoice dated 31.03.2017 for Rs. 4,41,180/-. As per Ex.C-4 odometer reading was 5 on 31.03.2017. Extended warranty was 2 years or 30,000KMs. As per Ex.C-6 free service conducted on 13.05.2017 of the vehicle. It is mentioned that AC some time not cooling.Ex.C-7 is the copy of proforma invoice dated 27.07.2017 in which it is mentioned that pump kit water, Engine coolant and rift water pump of the car was replaced under warranty. As per Ex.C-8 free service was conducted on 27.03.2018 and Parts were changed like filter kit air, Engine Oil evolution, filter oil, wiper wsh fluid, CRTG-AIR fitter, PROT DISPO CVR. As per Ex.C-9 dated 28.03.2018 some parts were changed as PROT DISPO CVR free of cost and rear view Camera payment was paid. As per Ex.C-10 dated 15.02.2018 car was repaired for steering bubbling problem. As per Ex.C-11 dated 22.05.2018 front break pads of the car was replaced. As per Ex.C-12 battery was issued in goodwill on 10.09.2018. As per Ex.C-13 odometer reading of the vehicle was mentioned as 28110 KMs. As per Ex.C-14 & C-15 are emails sent by complainant to Ops and car was repaired by the TVS auto for starting problem.
7. This Commission observed all documents of the complainant especially Ex.C-6 to C-12 which shows the change of the minor parts of the vehicle by Ops. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the vehicle in dispute was having manufacturing defects and the Ops had provided old car to the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op.no.1 stated that complainant is making purposeful and extensive use of the vehicle. Complainant has pleaded in his complaint at para number 3 that the vehicle was showing 500 KMs on the odometer at the time of purchase of the car on 31.03.2017. "A man can lie, but document Can't". As per document Ex.C-4 it is crystal clear that odometer reading mentioned as 5 on 31.03.2017 at the time of purchase of the car. This allegation of the complainant is falsified. However, as the said vehicle has been plied for a shorts spam of time 28110 KMs, odometer reading was mentioned as per Ex. C-13 dated 05.09.2018.
8. It is writ large on the file that if there had been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vehicle could not have been plied such a distance from 5 KMs Since 31.03.2017 to 28110 KMs upto 05.09.2018 as per Ex.C-13. Ex.C-14 and C-15 complainant sent the mails to the Ops. In these mails, the complainant threatening to the Ops that he will burn the car in front of Ops and media. From this angle, the complainant had not adopted the proper legal method to prove his case. It is established from the copies of Job Cards history which is Ex. C-6 to C-13 placed on record, that on every visit to the work shop the said vehicle was thoroughly checked and if minor defect was found, it was rectify or removed by the Ops.
9. This Commission observed that in all the Job Cards/Sheets, it is no where stated in the inspection reports that the said defects are having any inherent manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In our opinion the onus to prove manufacture defect was upon the complainant. Neither independent Expert opinion has been taken nor any cogent material evidence has been placed on the record by the complainant, in order to prove manufacturing defect. In case of "Sandeep polymers Pvt. Ltd. And others Vs Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd." III(2009) CPJ 389(NC), It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the burden to prove inherent defect is on the complainant. In case titled as "Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Sartaj Singh and others" 2012(2) CLT 342, the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Chandigarh, observed in Para number 21 " Respondent number 1 has not examined any expert nor any mechanic even to prove that there was excessive oil consumption or there was some defect in the gear system of the engine or in other parts of the engine. Law is well settled and the appellant has relied upon a number of authorities, to show that without there being any expert evidence, it cannot be concluded that there was manufacturing defect in the engine."
10. Accordingly, In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission and Hon'ble State Commission, we find that the complainant has failed to prove any inherent manufacturing defect in the said vehicle thus no deficiency in service is proved against Ops, as regard to manufacturing defect.
11. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
13. The file be returned back to the District Consumer Commission, Patiala. The Copy of this order be supplied as per rules to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Patiala.     

                                Announced.

                                25 January, 2022.

( Kanwaljeet Singh)    (Sarita Garg)  (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member                  President