Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/214/2015

Vansh Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MJS.BEDI

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/214/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	06/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	03/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vansh Malhotra son of Naveen Malhotra, resident of House No.426/12, Ashoka Garden Colony, Kaithal, Haryana. Now residing in House No. 449, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Limited, 1^st Floor, Plot No.15, Sector 32, Gurgaon – 122001 Haryana, India through its Managing Director.

 

[2]  Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Limited, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Haryana – 136027, through its General Manager.

 

[3]  Padam Motors Pvt. Limited, 182/2, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002, through its General Manager.

 

[4]  Dynamic Motors, RSA Motors Pvt. Limited, Plot No. 2 & 5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002 through its General Manager.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

         

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP Nos.3 & 4	:	Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant, who is a practicing Lawyer, had purchased a Chevrolet Sail Sedan on 03.04.2013 from Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure P-1. It has been averred that right from day one, warring yellow ignition light indication of the car was ‘on’. The Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 failed to fix the same, despite 40-50 visits by the Complainant (Annexure P-2 colly). However, the said problem was tracked after 7 months, whereafter the same was fixed. It has been alleged that since there was a problem in the whole lot of the model of the car in question, the Opposite Party No.2 replaced the main hub bolt and kit engine part of the car on 06.09.2013 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, due to problems in door panel, the Opposite Party No.3 replaced the Weather Stip part and Cable ASM mode of the doors on 10.05.2014 (Annexure P-4). After few months, on account of ABS Sensor and Car Turbo Pick up, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3. But, it took 4-5 months to fix that problem and ultimately, changed the whole wiring of the car (Annexure P-5 colly). Thereafter, on 08.03.2015, the Complainant had to leave his car with Opposite Party No.3 due to major problem therein, which was returned by it (OP No.3) on 12.03.2015, after getting the problem fixed (Annexure P-6 colly). It has been further averred that the on 23.09.2014, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 for service, the concerned representative had intimated that from now onwards the Complainant had to get service done after every 7500 Kms instead of 15000 Kms and a new chart was also pasted in his Owner’s Manual (Annexure P-7 and P-8). After driving the car for 3-4 days, when the Complainant again faced the similar problems, he got served a legal notice dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure P-8) upon the Opposite Parties, but nothing was done to redress his grievance. Hence, the present Complaint.           

      

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 19.05.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that its liability is strictly in accordance with the warranty agreement of the vehicle in question (Annexure OP1/1). It has been pleaded that all the works were carried out under the warranty without charging even a single penny from the Complainant. The Centralized Vehicle History of the vehicle has been annexed as Annexure OP1/2. All the problems were either running repairs or general in nature and were thus carried out under warranty. There was no problem in the vehicle in question and all the problems were illusionary and based on presumption of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has denied that the vehicle faced any problem on the first day of the purchase and that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 more than 40-50 times. It has been pleaded that the vehicle of the Complainant had no problem in respect of the main hub bolt, which was changed on the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 under a special campaign moved by it (OP No.1). It has been further pleaded that the problem of door noise, reported on 10.05.2014, was set right by replacing the worn out weather strip under warranty, without charging any money from the Complainant. It has been asserted that the problem with regard to ABS Sensor which was pointed out by the Complainant on 19.09.2014 and 13.10.2014, was fixed by replacing the ABS Sensors. The wiring of the vehicle was replaced just to keep the vehicle defect free. It has been denied that there was any major defect in the vehicle of the Complainant when he approached on 08.03.2015. One of the sensor of the vehicle was found defective and the same was to be replaced. The delay in the delivery of the vehicle was due to the reason that the defective part was requisitioned from the manufacturer. It has been admitted that on 23.09.2014 when the Complainant approached the answering Opposite Party for service, he was informed that as per new service schedule, the service of the vehicle has to be done up to 7500 Kms. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Opposite Party No.4 in its short reply, has stated that the Complaint is not maintainable qua it as neither the vehicle in question was purchased from it nor the Complainant brought the vehicle in question for repair to it except for 02.07.2013 with Complaint of yellow light on 03.10.2013 when he had approached for second free service and on 07.03.2014 when he approached for paid service. On said visits, his vehicle was attended to his satisfaction. The defects so pointed out were mended with minor adjustments and only jobs which were scheduled under the service were conducted on the vehicle (Vehicle history Annexure R-4/2). It has been pleaded that the Complainant has not alleged any specific allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the answering Opposite Party in his entire Complaint. The Complainant had always visited the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and his grouse is only against the said Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

6.      The Complainant also filed separate replications to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1, 3 and 4, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1, 3 and 4 have been controverted.

 

7.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

8.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.

 

9.      We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. From the facts on record, it is made out that the vehicle in question, was purchased by the petitioner on 03.04.2013, but the consumer complaint in question, has been filed on 06.04.2005, i.e., more than two years after the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant has tried to show that he has been taking the vehicle to the Dealer/ Service Centres for repairs etc., but he has not been able to give any reasonable explanation as to why the said complaint could not be filed within time. Under section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer complaint has to be filed within a period of two years from the date of cause of action. This Consumer Complaint is, therefore, clearly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Here, we are fortified by the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in R.P. No. 2830 of 2007, titled as “Ishwarlal Amarnani Vs. Hero Puch & Ors.”, 2011(3) CPJ (NC) 132, wherein the vehicle was bought in 2000 and the Complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2003. The contention of the Petitioner therein that the period of limitation will start when the Respondent failed to rectify the defects was held to be not tenable. It was held that Section 24-A of the Act is a legislative mandate to the Consumer Fora not to admit a Complaint unless it has been filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen except when the Complainant satisfies the Forum that there was sufficient cause for not filing Complaint within time. In the instant case, no such application for condonation of delay has been filed. The instant Complaint is, thus, barred by time and deserves to be dismissed. Further, a perusal of the facts on record show that the vehicle is in running condition which is evident from Annexure P-7 (Pg.No.29) with mention of mileage as 54423 Kms. Furthermore, there is no expert evidence on record that there is any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle.

 

10.      In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, dismiss the instant Complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  

 

11.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

03^rd November, 2015                           

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”