| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 339 of 11-12-2018 Decided on : 28-07-2022 Randeep Singh aged about 50 years S/o Fateh Singh, R/o Village Ryondh Kalan, Dashmesh Nagar, Budhlada, District Mansa. ........Complainant Versus Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Oragadam, Mathur Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District Tamil Nadu 602105 through its CMD/MD/Director/Chairman/GM Globe CV Pvt. Ltd., Lehra Mohabbat, Bathinda, through its CMD/MD/Director/Partner/Proprietor/Branch Head .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Present For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Chander Mohan, Advocate, for OP No. 1. Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, for OP No. 2. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Randeep Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased Bharat Benz transport vehicle on 27-2-2018 bearing engine No. 400924D0014101 and chassis No. MEC0774CAJP026099. The opposite parties gave warranty for one year for engine. It is alleged that engine of the truck was failed and was not started on 10-5-2018. The truck was brought to the workshop of opposite party No. 2 and after inspection of the truck, the service advisor gave a comment that engine not starting but the said job sheet was not handed over to the complainant. The complainant alleged that he was coming from Rajah Mundry to Jammu on 19-10-2018 and on the way, the engine of the said truck failed. The complainant lodged complaint with the company on toll free No. 822344. Thereafter engine of the vehicle was removed by the employees of the company of Indore branch and after six days they came back with the same engine and installed it in the vehicle and ran away from the spot. Thereafter the vehicle couldn't be started and complainant engaged Jai Siya Ram Crane Service on 30-10-2018 to lift the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 and paid Rs 75,000/-. The complainant gave a report to the police P.S. Simrol, District Indore regarding failure of his vehicle on road. The complainant also returned Rs 65,000/- being freight charges which was charged from Harbhagwan Roadways Rajah Mundry as the truck could not go to Jammu for delivery of goods which were carried in the truck. The truck remained parked in the workshop for 27 days for repair of the engine, but due to manufacturing defect, it could not be repaired but the opposite party charged Rs 10,000/- from complainant and handed over the truck and no receipt of Rs 10,000/- was given. Blank photocopy of the job sheet was issued to the complainant by opposite party No. 2 which bears signatures of technician of opposite party No. 2, so that defect may not come into the notice of complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to manufacturing defect, truck is lying parked in the house of the complainant. The complainant suffered Rs 81,000/-financial loss for 27 days (Rs 3000/- per day) as the vehicle was retained by the opposite party No 2 without rectifying the defect in the vehicle. The complainant alleged that he is suffering mental tension due to adamant attitude of the opposite parties for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs 2,26,000/- with 18% interest from 30-10-2018 till payment and pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation in addition to any other relief. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statements pleaded that M/s. Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party No. 1 is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of vehicles and is globally acclaimed for its class and quality. The products manufactured by it pass through stringent quality checks and test trials before the actual start of the commercial production. The products are manufactured and marketed after being approved by the appropriate authority which is highest body to certify the vehicles and go through a process of quality inspection before the same is dispatched to the authorized channel partner for sale on a 'principal to principal' basis. The opposite party No. 2 in the instant complaint, having excellent setup for after sales servicing of its vehicles, which are manned by qualified and experienced personnel. The customers of all the vehicles manufactured by opposite party are provided services through a large network of authorized dealers and service centers. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a 'consumer' as he had purchased the vehicle in question for 'commercial purpose' for running a transport business. That the complaint is not maintainable as subject matter of dispute exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. That the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Commission by suppressing the material facts. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations that the vehicle in question suffered from a manufacturing defect without relying on any expert report. That the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party as M/s. Kasliwal Trucking, Indore, authorized service station of opposite party No.1, who repaired the vehicle, has not been arrayed as party. As far as warranty is concerned, the customer shall have no other rights except those set out and in particular, have no right to repudiate any agreement, to claim any reduction of the purchase price or to demand any payment of damages or compensation for accrued or consequential losses. It has been pleaded that although the complainant had mis-used the vehicle rashly and had contravened the terms of warranty by not getting the vehicle serviced as per the periodic service schedule, however still as a goodwill gesture, the opposite parties changed the main parts under warranty. The vehicle was given in proper road worthy condition to the complainant to his utmost satisfaction, as is evident from the Customer Satisfaction Note dated 29.11.2018. The complaint has been filed without any cause of action, rather, the same has been filed in order to illegally harass the opposite party with ulterior motives and malafide intent seeking illegal enrichment without any basis. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant brought the vehicle in question from opposite party No.2 is a matter of record. It has been denied that the employees of the opposite party came after 6 days and installed the engine and ran away and that the vehicle could not be started thereafter. It has been pleaded that after receiving the complaint on 20/10/2018, the same was assigned to M/s. Kasliwal Trucking, Indore, authorized service center of opposite party No.1. The vehicle of the complainant was attended promptly by giving road side assistance by the said dealer and the engine from the vehicle was brought to workshop and the same was duly repaired/ serviced as per the requirement. Upon diagnosis, it was found that engine of the vehicle has been over-run, i.e. run beyond limit without proper scheduled maintenance and the same was the cause for vehicle breaking down. The engine failure is not due to any manufacturing defect but only due to abusive use of the said vehicle and improper maintenance by its driver and hence as per the terms of warranty it was not covered under warranty. In spite of reminder the complainant never brought for the scheduled services and over-run the vehicle by more than 4000 kms. Even though the same was breach of terms of warranty, the opposite party on a good will basis, approved to consider the repair job for the complainant reported on 20/10/2018 under warranty other than consumables. The repaired engine was made ready and the same was sent to breakdown site & fitted in the vehicle. The team fitted the engine on the same night and has taken the trial run and the vehicle was working fine to the satisfaction of the driver of the complainant. It has been specifically denied that the complainant engaged any company to lift the vehicle and to bring the same to the workshop at Bathinda after paying Rs.75,000/-. Document Ex.C-5 is a false document and is not a tax-invoice as claimed, as the same is evident from the face of it. It does not even mention any "tax-invoice" or any GST no. etc. Hence the said document is forged/fabricated and cannot be relied upon. It has been pleaded that the vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect. The problem which had occurred and rectified by the dealer was caused due to the sole reason that the engine of the vehicle had been over-run, i.e. run beyond limit without proper scheduled maintenance and the same was the cause for the problem. The repair work was carried on warranty basis without charging anything on parts, other than consumables. The same was done after taking consent from the customer. The averment with regard to handing over blank photocopy of job-sheet, as alleged is categorically denied. It is specifically denied that the vehicle could not be repaired, rather the same was duly repaired as per the satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the customer satisfaction note. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. The opposite party No. 2 in its written statement has pleaded that complainant does not disclose his grievance regarding any deficiency in service or irresponsible act on the part of opposite party No. 2. That no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. That the vehicle in question has been purchased by complainant for commercial purpose with a purpose of earning profits/additional income and not for livelihood, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. The Complainant has misguided this Commission by levying false allegations against opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has denied that the engine of the vehicle in question was failed and opposite party No. 2 issued Job Sheet on 11.05.2018 to the complainant. It has been pleaded that job sheet annexed by the complainant with his complaint was issued by opposite party No. 2 on 05.11.2018 and not 11.05.2018 as alleged by complainant. It has been specifically denied that the alleged job sheet bears the signatures of technician of opposite party No. 2. It is evident that on Job Card word 'MSV JOB CARD' has been written it and `MSV' means 'Mobile Service Van'. This type of Job Card is issued when there is break down of the vehicle on the road and the owner of the vehicle see road side assistance from any nearby dealership. The stand of the opposite party No.2 is corroborated by the terms and conditions mentioned on the Job Order. The concern of the complainant was resolved when vehicle in question was reported to the dealership of the opposite party No.2 after its break down in Indore. The vehicle in question was again reported to the dealership of the opposite party No.2 for some concern regarding 'Ad Blue Consumption' on 17.12.2018. It has been further pleaded that if the vehicle in question is lying faulty at the house of the complainant then the complainant would have sought its repair or replacement in the relief. The vehicle in question is in perfect condition and not suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect. Moreover, the vehicle was properly attended by the Service Team of the opposite party No.2 as and when the same was reported to the dealership of the opposite party No.2 for any scheduled service or for any concern. In further reply, the opposite party No.2 has given details of jobs sheets regarding repair work done to the vehicle in question on 11.05.2018, 22.05.2018, 25.06.2018, 13.08.2108, 01.11.2018 and 17.12.2018. On merits, the opposite party No.2 denied all the averments of complainant. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 prayed of dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his Affidavit dated 11.12.2018 (Ex.C-12) and the documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Affidavit of Sh. Jagdeesh Kumar dated 23.01.2019 (Ex.OP-1/6) and the documents (Ex.OP-1/1 to 1/5). The opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence Affidavit of Charanjit Singh dated 14.02.2019 (Ex.OP-2/35) and the documents (Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/34). Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as pleaded in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that on 10-5-18, complainant brought the vehicle in question to the workshop of opposite party No. 2 and after inspection, service advisor gave a comment that engine was not starting but the vehicle was handed over to complainant on 11-5-2018 after removing the defect. Thereafter, on 19-10-2018, engine of the said vehicle failed on the road when complainant was coming from Rajah Mundry to Jammu. As per complainant, he paid Rs. 75,000/- to Jai Siya Ram Crane Service for lifting the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No. 2. The complainant has alleged that since there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, opposite party No. 2 returned the same to complainant after retaining it for 27 days and charged Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant has also alleged that he returned Rs. 65,000/- to Harbhagwan Roadways Rajah Mundy being freight charges as the delivery of goods could not be made at its destination i.e. Jammu. The complainant also claims Rs. 81,000/- (@Rs. 3000/- per day) as financial loss for 27 days in addition to compensation etc., The opposite party No. 2 in its written version has pleaded that on 5-11-2018, complainant visited the dealership of opposite party No. 2 and preliminary diagnose was done upon which it was found that engine oil was not present in the engine then the top up of engine oil was done but all engine oil leaked from the main oil gallery upon which it was found that one nut was missing in one hole which caused leakage of engine oil and vehicle was not starting. Thereafter new nut was placed in that hole by the dealership of opposite party No. 2 and again top up of engine oil was done and the engine was started. Thereafter road test was taken and some whistle type noise was found from the engine. Thereafter engine was dismantled and some minor pitting and scoring marks were found on crank shaft and main big end bearing was also damaged. Rest came shaft, cylinder head, cylinder block and piston aongwith its rings were found ok. The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded that it apprised opposite party No. 1 about the same and opposite party No. 1 informed opposite party No. 2 to replace the defective parts under warranty but complainant was insisting to replace the full engine to which opposite party No. 1 did not agree. On 16-11-2018 complainant gave approval to replace the defective parts under warranty, and as such, defective parts were replaced under warranty and the vehicle in question was ready for delivery on 21-11-2018. Tax invoice for Rs. 14,049/- was issued towards consumables and labour charges except parts replaced under warranty. Thereafter complainant visited the dealership of opposite party No. 2 and apprised that he will take the test drive of the vehicle in question for a week and then will pay the invoice amount. The dealership of opposite party No. 2 agreed for the same and complainant took vehicle for test drive on 21-11-2019. Thereafter complainant visited dealership on 29-11-2019 and Rs. 4,000/- discount was offered by dealership on the invoice amount and complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- without any protest and took delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with the repair work. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question but there is not even a single document on file to prove this version rather the vehicle in question has been repaired by the opposite parties under warranty without charging any amount for the parts replaced and complainant has already taken delivery of the vehicle being fully satisfied. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant had mis-used the vehicle rashly and had contravened the terms of warranty by not getting the vehicle serviced as per periodic service schedule and in this regard, the opposite parties have placed reliance on Job Card History (Ex. OP-1/4). A perusal of this document reveal that service which was due at 40,000 Kms and was got conducted by complainant on 44,034 Kms. Thus, in this way, the vehicle has not been used by the complainant in compliance to the periodic maintenance schedule and the same has been used in contravention thereof. Now, by filing this complaint, the complainant has prayed seeking directions of this Commission to the opposite parties to pay him crane charges Rs. 75,000/-, freight charges Rs. 65,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- paid to dealership and Rs. 81,000/- financial loss for the period the vehicle remained parked with repairer. Ex. OP-1/2 is the General Terms of Warranty. Clause 1 of these terms and conditions reveal that “The customer is required to bring the vehicle in case of any defect to any of the BharatBenz authorised dealers of Service Centers and in no way shall DICV be held responsible for transferring the vehicle for service to any of the BharatBenz authorised dealer of Service Centre.” The complainant has failed to prove on file that opposite parties were bound to transfer the defective vehicle from the place of spot to any dealer/service centre. In such circumstances, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any crane charges. The complainant has claimed Rs. 65,000/- as freight charges on the ground that due to defect in truck in question goods loaded in truck could not be delivered at its destination, but complainant failed to bring on file cogent and reliable evidence to prove his contention rather defect, if any, took place in the vehicle in question, not due to any fault on the part of the opposite parties rather complainant himself was negligent in maintaining the same by not getting done the services as per periodic schedule, as discussed above. The complainant has also claimed refund of Rs. 10,000/- paid to the dealer/repairer. Admittedly, opposite parties have repaired the vehicle in question under warranty without charging any amount for the parts replaced and Rs. 10,000/- were charged only against consumable. The opposite parties are also not liable to pay any amount on account of any loss, if any, suffered by complainant during the period the truck remained parked for repair with dealership as complainant himself failed to give approval for repair in time. Moreover, there is no document on file to prove that repair was to be done in how much time span. The complainant has failed to place on file any expert, cogent and convincing evidence to prove that vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect. Thus, when complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, he is not entitled to claim any amount on this score from the opposite parties. In the result, this complaint failed and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to Covid Pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 28-7-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
