The instant Consumer Complainant was registered by Mr. Anmol Prasad a practicing Advocate and inhabitant of Dist & Town Kalimpong who had purchased a four wheeler styled as Nissan Terrano XVD Model through the authorized dealer MLA auto India Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Mile Sevoke Road, Siliguri on 14.03.2015 by paying its consideration money Rs. 14,12,926 including restoration and other costs.
According to him, the aforeside vehicle functioned normally enough till 2017 and thereafter Since January 2018 the vehicle began to indicate a serious malfunction with the check lamp indicating something was wrong. There after the other electronic fault or diesel preheating warning light also began to come.
The complainant quickly took the vehicle to the authorized service center Kayson’s Venture Pvt. Ltd. Siliguri( OP No. 2) for repair which was checked and released on 23.01.2018.
Shortly there after the check light began to come on frequently while driving and began to stall repeatedly. He had to visit to the service center and Rs. 27000/- was incurred to ride the problem but the problem was not resolved and again the service center forced him to incur further expenditure for repairment.
This problem was continued day by day during the plying of the vehicle and lot of Money had to spent but the problem of the vehicle could not be cured and has become useless and now the complainant come to know that the vehicle sold to the complainant which had manufacturing defects and the service center ( OP No. 2) was tinkering and experimenting with the vehicle by replacing one component and the others at the expense of the complainant, so he registered the case.
The OP No. 1 ie the manufacturer of the vehicle is contesting the instant dispute contended in written version that the OP No. 1 had an agreement with authorized dealer MLA auto India Pvt. Ltd. on principal to principal basis and as such not impleading the authorized dealer in this case, the case has become bad for misjoinder of necessary party.
The further case of OP No. 1 is that as there was agreement principal to principal basis with the dealer the manufacturer has no liability for any manufacturing defects and if the manufacturer ( OP No. 1) was intimated about the defects of check lights and others the manufacturer then could get the opportunity to replace the defective parts.
The OP No. 2 the authorize service center has contested the case by filing WV and contested that OP No. 2 has had any relationship with Nishan Motors as manufacturer and authorized service provider.
The further case is thar the commission has got no territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain such frivolous manufactured Consumer complaint by enhancing the quantum of compensation exceeding twenty Lakhs to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission.
The further case of OP no. 2 is that it had no latches, negligence, failure and deficiency of service on its part and if there was any manufactural defect the manufacturer and dealer were liable for any compensation and this OP no. 2 had no liability in this Score.
In this case the complainant was examined by submitting affidavit and he was cross examined by way of interrogatories and reply. Similarly OP No. 1 and 2 also was examined and cross examined by applying the mode formulated in J.J merchant case.
Both sides has furnished the documentary evidences they relied upon.
Argument of both sides was heard and WNA also filed by them.
Points:-
- Is the instant Consumer Complaint maintainable in its present Form and Law?
- Has this Commission got Jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant dispute?
- Is the Complainant is entitled to get relief/relieves as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Points No. 1 to 3:- All the three points are taken up togetherly for discussion and adjudication as they are inter related and inter connected to each other.
Admittedly the vehicle in dispute was purchased by the complainant from its authorized dilater MLA auto India Pvt. Ltd. by making payment of its price to the tune of Rs. 14,12,226.
Fact remains that said auto India Pvt. Ltd was not impleaded as a party of this case for the reason unknown to this bench.
It is not also disputed that the complainant got full use of the vehicle smoothly for the first three years of purchase and there after he could detected that the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects since the date of purchase.
Now the manufacturer (OP No. 1) wants to evade the liability by making whispering that the company as manufacturer had an agreement with the dealer( Auto India Pvt. Ltd.) “Principal to principal” basis and if there was any manufacturing defect the dealer was liable as because the dealer had the responsibility to cure the defects by replacing the defective parts of the vehicle on informing the manufacturer and at that time manufacturer had the liability to replace the defective parts before selling of the vehicle to the customer.
In this case, the OP No. 2 also contends that this organization was not the authorized service provider to Nissan motors, so OP No. 2 had contended no liability for having any manufacturing defect of the vehicle.
It is also established in this case that the Regional transport Officer of District Kalimpong through MVI(Technical) had thoroughly checked the vehicle when it was referred to him by this bench and it was observed that the check lamp was displayed in the dashboard( dash instrument panel) when ever the vehicle was started. But it could not be ascertained whether there was any manufacturing defect as no infrastructural facilities was available.
The vital point is this Case has been raised by the OP NO. 2 that OP No. 2 was not the authorized service provider of OP NO. 1 and in this score a question was put before the complainant whether before or at the time of registration the Consumer Complaint he could check and satisfy himself as OP No. 2 was the authorized service provider of OP No. 1 the answer of the Complainant against the said point is very evasive as because he was not fully confirmed that OP no. 2 was authorized service provider directly under OP no. 1 .
We know very well that generally dealers of the vehicle make agreement locally with the service centers for servicing the vehicles which are sold From the said dealers. In most of the cases the dealers also maintain unit of servicing for its customers.
But unfortunately the dealer who was authorized to sell out the said Nissan motor to the complainant is not being impleaded in this case and for such reasons some issues in related to this dispute reminded unresolved.
It is also fact that the units of manufacturer(OP No. 1) dealer ( Auto India pvt Ltd)and so called authorized service center(OP No. 2) are located in different places. So in order to promote commercial activity there was agreement of dealership with manufacturer of vehicle based on “ principal” to principal basis” the primary liability of manufacturing defect rests upon dealer who may cure such defects by replacing the defective parts of the vehicle in Consultance and taking assistance of the manufacturer.
So not impleading the actual seller of the vehicle( Auto India Pvt. Ltd.) the case of the complainant has become fatal.
Rather the subject matter of the case is consideration money and price of the vehicle fixed at Rs. 14,12,226 and for that reason the actual jurisdiction of the dispute comes under the domain of Ld. Dist Fora Jalpaiguri as because the unit of dealer ( Auto India Ltd.) and OP no. 2 are situated Under Bhakti Nagar PS. of Dist. Jalpaiguri.
The complainant had chosen this bench by flattering compensation amounts sought for in order to invoke the jurisdiction which is also not appreciable.
Rather it is also not resolved that OP No. 2 is the authorized Service provider Under OP no. 1 and the last but not the least, it is also not proved that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect at the time of purchase.
So all the points related to this case are answered not in favour of complainant and as such the instant Consumer Case has got no merit at all.
Hence, it’s ordered
That the instant Consumer Complaint filed by Mr. Anmol Prasad is hereby dismissed on contest against OP no. 1 and 2. Without cost.
