Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/725/2022

RAGHU RAMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH BAINS

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/725/2022
Date of Institution	:	16.8.2022
Date of Decision	:	27/2/2024

 

Raghu Raman S/o Prem Parkash Chauhan, age 42 R/o# 3025, Sector-35 D, Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (through its Managing Director) Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001

 

2. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.-Auto Division (through its Managing Director) Opposite Swaraj Plant Gate No.4, Industrial Area, Phase-IV, Sector-58, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, PIN 160055.

 

3. Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Auth. Dealer Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., through its Managing Director) Plot No. 182/84, Near Haryana Roadways Workshop, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh. PIN 160022.

 

4. Harbir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Auth. Service Centre/Workshop of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., through its Managing Director) Plot No. 182/7, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh.

.....Opposite parties.

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Vaibhav Narang and Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.3&4.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Mahindra Bolero vehicle from OP No.1 through OP No.2 on 29.8.2017 having warranty of 3 years. However, the said vehicle started giving problems in the mechanical parts and in the painted body as the its paint started to fade, blemished, getting dull and spoiled, peeled off and the said problem was reported to the authorized service centre of OP No.1 at M/s Raj Vehicles Mohali on 17.12.2018.  The paint work and mechanical work was conducted on the car but it could not last for long and the same problem  of fading out, peeling off the paint again started and remained continuous till further. The problem was reported to Ops No.1&2 on 13.8.2020  and the they advised the complainant to visit OP No.4 alongwith the vehicle  and complainant accordingly visited OP No.4 for mechanical and paint work on 24.8.2020. It is alleged that the OP No.4 unnecessary kept the vehicle with it unnecessary and did not start the repair work as result of which the complainant could not use his vehicle and the OP No.4 only completed the work on 21.9.2020 after a period of almost one month due to which the complainant has to undergo a lot of mental agony and harassment. It is alleged that the paint work done by the OP No.4 was erroneous and defective and used inferior quality paint. On 19.10.2020 the complainant written to OP No.4 highlighting the same problems of the paint  and poor workmanship.  Thereafter the complainant vide various communications requested the OPs to rectify the problem but nothing was done by the OPs. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the  relationship between the  answering Ops and the authorized dealer is on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis and the answering Ops are not responsible for any act, omissions or commission  of any  its dealer. Moreover, the paint issues in the vehicle crop up usually due to external factors and improper usage, maintenance of the vehicle. As per warranty terms and conditions the complainant has no case, as the defect of paint is not covered under warranty because the paint on the vehicle depends upon various external factors, such as climate, parking spot, water used for cleaning and washing, products such as car washing soap, creams and polishes, etc., therefore, it is not even covered under warranty. Moreover, had there been any manufacturing defect then it would have surfaced during the very first wash.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OPs No.3&4 in their reply stated that the repair work was done as per normal standards of the manufacturing company and at that time it was COVID19 period and limited staff was available at the workshop yet the answering OPs cooperated with the complainant and provided him best services. It is averred that there was no fault found in the vehicle in question but yet as a goodwill, the manufacturing company directed to re-paint some of the panels for the satisfaction of the complainant and the same was done and repainting has to be done with caution and patience but the complainant always reported negative to the manufacturing company. Only the estimated time was given and painting was done with patience and that is why it took time, moreover it was panedamic period, so staff was also less. It is averred that the complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle and even otherwise there is any manufacturing defect  the manufacturer is liable. Denying any deficiency on its part  a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that after purchase and using of car it started giving problem in the mechanical parts and in the painted body parts of the car. The paint started to fade, blemished, getting dull, spoiled and peeled off  and after the repair by M/s Raj vehicles  Mohali, it could not last for long and same problem of fading out, peeling off the paint again started and remained till date.
8. It is observed that the complainant has raised certain allegations against M/s Raj vehicles Mohali  which is a necessary party to answer the queries regarding the dispute in question  but the complainant has not impleaded  the said service centre as party to the instant complaint.
9. As per warranty terms and conditions of warranty the defect of paint is not covered under warranty because the paint on the vehicle depends upon various external factors, such as climate, parking spot, water used for cleaning and washing, products such as car washing soap, creams and polishes, etc., therefore, it is not even covered under warranty.
10.  Admittedly, the problem started in the vehicle in the year 2018 and the complaint has been filed in August 2022 i.e. almost after four years of occurring of the said problem and as such the complaint is also barred by time. Thus from the forgoing, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12. Application if any stands disposed off.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
27/2/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member