Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/201/2016

Pushpinder Honey - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vansh Malhotra, Adv.

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	201 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	13.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	15.07.2016

 

Pushpinder Honey S/o Rajinder Kumar, #2, G.F., Galaxy Green Apartments, M.S-2, Near Green Valley Park, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali. 

 

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Plot No.15, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India through its Managing Director.  

 

2.  Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd.182/2, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh-160002 through its General Manager.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

         Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection

               Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:      JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      Mr.Vansh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

                               

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against an  order dated 11.4.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short  the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted a    complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.        A car was purchased by the appellant from Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 on 28.4.2013. The said car was manufactured by Respondent No.1. On 13.5.2013, the car developed a problem. It was taken to workshop of Respondent No.2 where its engine was changed. After repairs, the car was delivered to the appellant. About 30 days thereafter, its A.C. stopped working. On 23.5.2015, internal parts of A.C. were changed.  Thereafter  snags continued to occur with the car and it was taken to workshop of Respondent No.2 many a times.  As per Manual, supplied at the time of purchase of car, its service was to be affected after covering 15,000 Kms. However, the engineer of Respondent No.2 asked the appellant to get it serviced when the car covered 10,000 Kms instead of 15,000Kms.  By alleging deficiency in service and physical and mental harassment, appellant filed a complaint on 17.6.2016. By that time, the car had already run more than two years.  
3.        Upon notice, reply was filed by Opposite Party No.2 admitting that the car had developed some defects and further stating that for loss caused to the appellant, cash amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to him and besides as above, accessories worth Rs.25,000/- were also fitted in the car.  All the defects were set right  within  the warranty period and nothing was charged from the appellant. It was further stated that the car came to the workshop 3-4 times during the period of more than 2 years.  It was repaired to the satisfaction of the appellant. It was further stated that the  complaint was filed without any justification.
4.       The District Forum after hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on analyzing evidence on record, allowed the complaint granting following relief to the complainant/appellant ;

1.  To do the necessary repairs of the vehicle in question by repairing it or replacing the parts, if needed without charging anything from the complainant.

 ii.  To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment suffered on account  of deficient services of Opposite Party No.2..

3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

            Directions were issued to the respondents to affect necessary repairs of the vehicle, may be, by replacing the parts, if need be, without charging anything. Compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the appellant, besides an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5.       By filing this appeal, it has been stated by the Counsel for the appellant that there was manufacturing defect in the car and finding given by the District Forum to the contrary, was not justified. To buttress his arguments, he has shown that the car engine was changed within one month from the date of its purchase. Thereafter, vital parts of A.C. were also changed.  Problem was not settled even then and the car continued to give problem to the appellant on many days.  Despite taking it to the workshop, its defects could not be removed. He prayed that let  directions be issued to return the car and providing new car to the appellant. 

6.        We have heard  Counsel for the appellant, and gone through the evidence on record. The car was purchased on 28.4.2013 and by now the appellant had used it for more than three years.  It has also covered a distance of more than 15000 KMs. It was also noticed that  to say that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the car, no expert evidence has been brought on record. In the first month of its purchase, car engine was changed. Thereafter, as per record, the car  was taken to workshop for minor repairs. Taking note of evidence, the District Forum rightly ordered the Opposite Parties to repair the car properly and to compensate the appellant/complainant for sufferance etc. and mental agony, an amount of Rs.50,000/ was ordered to be paid. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- were also awarded in favour of the appellant.  Besides as above, it is on record that Respondent No.2 had already paid an amount of Rs.25,000/-, in cash, to the appellant, towards taxi expenses etc. Accessories to the tune of Rs.25,000/- were also provided to the appellant to compensate him. Under the above circumstances,  no ground, whatsoever, has been made out by the appellant, to make interference, in the order under challenge.

7.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8.        Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

15.07.2016

 

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

       MEMBER

 

 

JS