Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/274/2017

Ms. Neelam Bhosle - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bimal Maini

23 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/274/2017
Date of Institution	:	29/03/2017
Date of Decision	:	23/07/2019

 

Ms. Neelam Bhosle wife of Rajneesh Bhosle r/o House No.276, Sector 11, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited through its Chairman/Managing Director, Block B, Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Aklol, District Panchmahal, Gujarat 389351.

2.     M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd., authorised service centre of Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.182/1, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh (substituted vide order dated 31.8.2017 of this Forum in place of  Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Chairman/Managing Director, 182/1, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh)

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                        

                          

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Bimal Maini, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, Counsel for OPs
	:	None for OP-2

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Beat car from OP-2 authorised dealer of OP-1 on 17.10.2011 on payment of consideration.  Maintained, it carried warranty which expired on 17.10.2014, but, in the month of January 2014, official of OP-2 approached the complainant and on their convincing extended the warranty till 16.10.2016 on payment of Rs.6,075/-.  Before extending the warranty, official of OP-2 had examined the vehicle and no defects were noticed in it. However, in the month of June 2015, a defect developed in the engine of the vehicle, but, in spite of extended warranty, original OP-2 Padam Motors  had raised the bill of Rs.31,746/-. Original OP-2 had also charged Rs.857/- and Rs.400/-extra from the complainant towards change of separator PCV OIL and Filter kit oil vide bill dated 16.7.2015 which were earlier changed on 10.10.2014.  It was a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of Rs.31,746/- and Rs.1,50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment, mental agony, litigation expenses etc.
2.         OP-1 had filed its written statement and claimed, there are no allegations against it of there being any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was also the case, warranty was extended by the original OP-2 Padam Motors and not by manufacturer/OP-1, therefore, it has no concern with the case unless some manufacturing defect was pleaded which was not the case.
3.         Let it be taken note of here that M/s Padam Motors (OP-2) was not served and it was reported to have left the place and on application moved by the complainant M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. was substituted as OP-2 vide order dated 31.8.2017.

                M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. contested the consumer complaint and claimed, it has no connection with M/s Padam Motors as it had taken the garage on lease in the year 2017 and the said company had not inherited any assets from M/s Padam Motors.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.

4.         No rejoinder was filed by the complainant despite grant of opportunities.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP-1 and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         A perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint shows, payments were made to M/s Padam Motors; warranty was extended by M/s Padam Motors; amount was charged by M/s Padam Motors of which refund was prayed for.  However, the address of the Managing Director of M/s Padam Motors could not be traced by the complainant despite having been afforded many opportunities.
8.         The complainant had moved an application vide which M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd., authorised service centre of OP-1, was substituted as OP-2 in place of M/s Padam Motors. Be it noted here, the said successor had not succeeded any property of M/s Padam Motors who had sold the vehicle to the complainant, extended the warranty and raised the bill despite the extended warranty being in force.  No documents were produced by the complainant that any assets were succeeded by M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. belonging to M/s Padam Motors. M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. has produced on record lease deed dated 26.4.2017 which shows, said garage was taken on lease by it from one Smt. Shalu Gupta and not from M/s Padam Motors.  In such a situation, no liability can be fastened on M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd./OP-2.
9.         In the consumer complaint as well as in the record produced, there is no iota of evidence to show there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle vide which liability is to be fastened upon OP-1.  It is the own admitted case of the complainant, warranty was extended by M/s Padam Motors and not by M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. There is no report of any mechanical engineer showing there was some mechanical defect in the vehicle. The said vehicle was running on the road right from the year 2011 and the complaint was preferred on 31.3.2017 i.e. to say after six years and now 8-9 years have already lapsed from the date of purchase of the vehicle.  In the situation, for want of expert evidence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, no case of any deficiency in service or say unfair trade practice is made out against either of the OPs.  Name of M/s Padam Motors were dropped and in its place M/s Ambala Automobile India Ltd. was substituted and in this situation no notice was issued to M/s Padam Motors as their address was not traced.  We find it a case of no evidence to establish allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the OPs. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/07/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President