Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/767/2017

Gurmail Singh Sekhon - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sartaj Singh Thakur

16 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/767/2017
Date of Institution	:	01/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/04/2019

 

Gurmail Singh Sekhon son of Shri Gurbax Singh, resident of Green Avenue Faridkot, Pin 151203, Tehsil Faridkot, District Faridkot.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400001, India through its M.D.

2.     Harbir Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.182/84, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

… Opposite Parties

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

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Amardeep Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Counsel for OP-1 alongwith Sh. Rohit Bhatt, Customer Care Manager of OP-1 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-2 alongwith Sh. Rajeev Kumar, Service Head of OP-2.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, on 10.9.2017 complainant had purchased a Mahindra Scorpio car from OP-2, authorised dealer of OP-l and paid a sum of Rs.13,77,776/-.  Maintained on the next day i.e. 11.9.2017 the blower controller of the car was not working and the OPs had assured to resolve the problem, but, the same was not done.  The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.

                Maintained, after a few days, complainant went to the service station for washing of the car and one of the workers found a dent and rust on the roof of the car which was also noticed by the complainant and helpline number of the OPs was contacted.  The vehicle was got checked and the workers at the service station advised that the dent needs to be fixed and the car is required to be repainted after fixing the dent. As such, complainant was defrauded by the OPs and an e-complaint was sent on 29.9.2017, but, no relief was given.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for replacement of the car alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint, filed reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of OP-2 being their authorised dealer and the relationship between the two is on principal to principal basis and not agency. It was further claimed, complainant has not reported the said defect to any authorised dealer.  It is also the case, there is no job card to prove allegations levelled.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 has adopted the written reply furnished on behalf of OP-1.
4.         Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, the admitted facts are, the Scorpio car in question was purchased by the complainant on 10.9.2017 from the OPs.  There is no dispute with regard to these facts and the invoice is Annexure C-1.  The limited question for determination is whether there remains any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs i.e. one authorised dealer and the other manufacturer.
8.         The allegations made in the consumer complaint are supported by way of affidavit of the complainant. Not only this, there is an e-mail complaint dated 29.9.2017 addressed by the complainant to OP-2 whereby it was pointed out there is rust on the roof of the car. The said deficiency was pointed out after a gap of 18 days,
9.         Perusal of the record i.e. the photographic evidence (Annexure C-4) further shows, on the roof of the car there appears to be roughness in the paint and dent type appearance.  This roughness in the paint on the small portion of the roof cannot be taken that these were done or say self-inflicted by the complainant to make out the case.
10.         Not only this, this Forum had also inspected the vehicle in question in the complex premises of this office, on being produced by the complainant, and the relevant observations made by this Forum are reproduced as under :-

“On the roof of the vehicle, there seems to be some sprinkle of some substance on its small portion but it cannot be said authentically that rust was formed after oxidation as its colour did not reflect to be a rust formation.  Let this observation note be placed in consumer complaint No.767 of 2017.”

 

This was so referred in the memorandum of inspection note prepared by this Forum.

11.         Per material adduced on record by the complainant and the inspection done by this Forum, there was roughness or say sprinkle of some substance on a small portion of the roof.  Faced with this situation or say confronted with this, even during the course of arguments, OPs were ready to get the roof repainted and remove the roughness which was not acceptable to the complainant who insisted for its replacement. 
12.         We have already referred the record and this record does not conclude of there being any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and even during the course of arguments it was pointed, the vehicle had already ran out 25000 kms. from the date of purchase i.e. 10.9.2017 and no visible defect was noticed in the vehicle, except for roughness or say rust in the roof and for which deficiency the complainant could be compensated by way of compensation. 
13.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under :-

1. To pay a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant;
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/04/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President