Delhi

StateCommission

CC/958/2019

RAHUL PARASHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. ANAND G MAHINDRA CHAIRMAN MAHINDRA GROUP M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JITENDER SAHNI

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :29.11.2019

Date of Decision :03.12.2019

COMPLAINT NO.958/2019

In the matter of:

Rahul Parashar,

Shri R.K. Sharma,

R/o. C-4/13, Himalyan Apartments,

Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075..………Complainant

 

Versus

           

1. Shri Anand G. Mahindra,

Chairman, Mahindra Group,

M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Group,

Mahindra Tower,

6-A, Bhikaji Coma Place,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.

 

2. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Mahindra Tower,

6-A, Bhikaji Coma Place,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.

 

3. Sri Durga Automobiles,

(A Division of Lido Commercial Co. Ltd.),

55, Rama Road, New Delhi-110015.

 

Also at:-

Sri Durga Automobiles,

K-28 A, Raja Puri, Opp. Sector-5,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110059.                               .…..Opposite parties

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint at the stage of admission is based on the allegations that on representation made by sale representative of OP-3, brochures and vehicle catalogues published by the OP-1 and 2, the complainant was allured and enticed by the tall promises and host of features as well as performance guaranteed by the representative of OP-3. He booked XUV500W8 and purchased the same from OP-3 on 16.12.14. The invoice’s value was Rs.13,21,945/- and number of the car was DL10CT1382. On 26.12.17 he was planning a trip to Gujrat, he sent the vehicle for complete pre emptive check to the authorised workshop of OP-2 in order to ensure fitness of the vehicle  and to iron out any possible issue which may result in any snag or issue during the journey. After receiving the vehicle back from OP-2, complainant set on for a trip to Gujrat alongwith members of his family. After driving few hundred kilometres on the afternoon on 08.01.18 the car met an accident at the toll gate of Keshod, Near Junagarh, Gujrat on account of brake failure. The same resulted in extensive damages to  vehicle and caused physical injuries to the complainant and members of his family. Much touted safety features such as air bags failed to deploy despite such a strong impact, had air bags functioned properly, injuries suffered by complainant and his family members would have been prevented.
2. Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 and 2 vide mail dated 18.01.18. OP-1 and 2 responded vide mail date  28.01.18 blatantly denying  failure of brakes as well as made an inane excuse for non deployment of air  bags.
3. Complainant contacted OP-1 for seeking details of logistic services for delivery of vehicle from Rajkot, Gujrat to Delhi which was done after charging Rs.13,100/- as shipping charges. He sent the  vehicle to OP-3 for necessary check up. He received the same on 10.03.18 after purported repair  but detailed report of R&D was not provided. He came across news report in which Mahindra XUV500 was  crashed/ damaged severely but all the  6 air bags failed to deploy even in such huge impact. Hence this complainant  for replacing the vehicle with new one or refund the consideration of Rs.13,21,945/- with interest @12% p.a., Rs.5 lakhs as ancillary expenses of service / maintenance of vehicle, Rs.10 lakhs for physical and mental  pain, agony, trauma, negligence, deficiency in service and manufacturing defects in the vehicle.
4. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Firstly the vehicle was purchased in 2014 and it is difficult to believe after 5 years that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. Seeking replacement of the vehicle  after using the same for 5 years is quite strange. More over merely because the air bags did not open, it cannot be said that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect.
5. Still further the law is that there can be no complaint regarding manufacturing defect without report of expert. In this regard reference can be made to decision of NC in R.P. No.2840/16 titled as Sanjay Singh vs. Dabloo Bhagat decided on 11.05.18.
6. The complainant has not filed any expert report. The complaint is dismissed in limine.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                    

  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•