Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/142

Guriqbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sheikh Farid Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Dhir

26 May 2015

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        142

Date of Institution :  17.10.2014

Date of Decision :    26.05.2015

 

Guriqbal Singh s/o Jaswant Singh  V P O Behle Wala, District Faridkot.                                                                                                              

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Sheikh Farid Automobile Ltd. Kotkapura road, District Faridkot through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2. Mahindera & Mahindra Ltd.Sector-5, II E, Sidcul, Haridwar-249403, through Manager-Quality Assurance.

   ....Opposite Parties(Ops)

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:      Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh S K Dhir,  Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh A K Chawla, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

   OP-2 Exparte.

    

   (A K Mehta, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Sheikh Farid Automobile Ltd etc/ Ops for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to Ops to replace the Bolero jeep or refund the price of said jeep and to pay      Rs1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and  to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

   2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one Bolero Jeep vide invoice no. INV14A000826 dt 6.11.2013 for Rs 7,86,500/-, which includes Rs 10,500/-for providing Anti Teflon Coat on the body of the jeep; that complainant paid Rs 10,500/- to OP-1 for Anti Teflon Coat to the body of jeep and OP-1 assured complainant that by giving anti Teflon coating, the jeep will never develop rust and complaint of colour off; that complainant purchased the said jeep for giving as a gift to his sister on her marriage and within 3-4 months, jeep started developing rusting and its colour got off; that brother in law of complainant intimated him about rusting and colour off complaint to complainant and complainant informed about this fact to Ops and complainant approached Ops many times with request to replace the Bolero Jeep, but OP-1 kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other telling him to wait for some time and if jeep further develops more rust and colour off, then they would replace the Bolero Jeep; that on enquiry, OP- failed to mention the fact that in fact Bolero Jeep was never given anti Teflon coat inspite of receiving Rs 10,500/-from the complainant for providing anti Teflon coat to the jeep and by not giving anti Teflon coat to the said jeep, Ops have failed to provide accurate services as assured by them at the time of selling the vehicle to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops and this act of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant; that complainant also served legal notice to Ops, which bore no fruit; that complainant has prayed for directions to Ops to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation for mental tension and harassment besides Rs 50,000/- as cost of the complaint along with main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.10.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

   4                                                  On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no. 1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is vague and has no locus standi to file the present complaint as complainant has never paid any amount for anti Teflon coat as alleged and complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant purchased one Bolero Jeep vide invoice dt 6.11.2013 for Rs 7,57,013/- and Rs 1000/-was received for Temporary RC, Rs 5500/- for Basic Kit and Handling charges and Rs 20,000/- was given as discount and further Rs 31029/- was debited as Insurance premium; that complainant deposited in advance Rs 1,75,000/- and Rs 5,76,720/- were received as Financed on 6.11.2013 on the day of delivery of vehicle and further complainant paid Rs 8000/- on 23.01.2014 and Rs 14,800/- as on 5.08.2014 and thus a total of Rs 7,94,542/- was paid by complainant to OP-1 and this amount does not include any charges for anti Teflon coat as alleged by the complainant, rather it includes the discount of Rs 20,000/-given to complainant; that no amount of Rs 10,500/- was paid to OP for anti Teflon coat nor the same was provided to the complainant; that Lakhwinder Singh Sales Manager gave only an estimate slip and not any receipt and thereafter, complainant did not pay any amount for anti Teflon coat; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party; that all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.  Notice was issued to OP-2 through RC on 26.11.2014 and OP-2 was declared to have been duly served through RC containing notice and copy of complaint and as none appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 on the date fixed, therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 6.01.2015.

   5                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-20    and then, closed the evidence.

   6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Hari Om Chauhan Ex OP-1/1 and document Ex OP-1/2 and then evidence of OP-1 was closed by the order of this Forum.

   7                                                        We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

   8                                                    The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant was to purchase a vehicle for giving the same as gift to her sister at her marriage. He contended that complainant went to the agency of Ops and obtained estimate for Mahindra and Mahindra Jeep which is proved on the file as Ex C-5. He contended that the estimate includes amount of Rs 10,500/-which was meant for anti rust or anti  Teflon coat which is meant for protecting the vehicle from rust. He contended that complainant purchased jeep vide cash memo Ex C-8 and gave the same as gift to his sister in her marriage. He contended that the jeep was returned to the complainant by his sister on the ground that the jeep is not having proper anti Teflon coating as it started rusting. He contended that it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops as inspite of charging amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti Teflon coating to protect it from rusting, the jeep started rusting and it shows that the Ops have not given the anti Teflon coat properly or not at all and it has also lowered the reputation and respect of the complainant in the eyes of in-laws of his sister. He contended that complainant visited the agency of Ops many times requesting them to change/replace the jeep in question or to return the price of the jeep, but with no effect and it has also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and Ops are required to be directed to either replace the jeep in question or to return the price of the jeep alongwith compensation and litigation expenses and Ops may also be burdened with interest on the price of the jeep.

      9                                               The Ld counsel for complainant contended that complainant came to the agency of Ops for purchasing Mahindra Bolero Jeep and asked for estimate and the Ops gave estimate of two different types of jeeps vide document Ex C-5 i.e for Bolero ZLX and Bolero SLX. He contended that the estimate includes Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coat but inspite of that the Bolero Jeep in question got rusted, which shows deficiency in service on the part of Ops. He contended that complainant visited the agency of Ops many times and requested for replacement of jeep or for return of price but with no effect, which caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and Ops are required to be directed to replace the Bolero Jeep in question or to return the price of the jeep and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

       10                                Ld counsel for Ops admitted that the complainant purchased the Bolero Jeep from the Ops. He also admitted that Ops gave estimate for two types of Bolero jeeps i,e Bolero Jeep ZLX and Bolero Jeep SLX Ex C-5. He also contended that the estimate includes the amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coat but complainant did not opt for anti rust coat at the time of purchase of the Bolero Jeep nor paid the amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coat which is clear from the statement of the account proved by Ops as Ex OP-1/2, which shows that the amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coat was not paid by the complainant and consequently, no such anti rust coating was performed on the Bolero Jeep and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed in order to extract some money illegally from the Ops and is liable to be dismissed.

   11                                            After going through the record of the case, pleadings, evidence and affidavit and documents proved on the file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that complainant has not paid the amount of Rs 10,500/-for anti rust coating. Complainant has proved estimate of Bolero Jeep given by the Ops as Ex C-5 and this estimate is also admitted by the Ops. This estimate shows that the price of the Bolero Jeep ZLX was for Rs 7,57,500/- and insurance amount was Rs 32,500/-, cost of temporary number Rs 1000/- and Bolero Kit ws for Rs 4500/- and anti rust coat was Rs 10,500/-. Complainant has proved bill of the Bolero Jeep Ex C-8 on the file which shows that complainant paid the price of Bolero ZLX Jeep Rs 7,57,013/-, bill Ex C-8 is silent if price for anti rust coat was paid by the complainant or not. Ops have proved copy of ledger containing statement of account regarding vehicle sold to complainant Guriqbal Singh, which is proved on the file as Ex Op-1/2. It shows that complainant booked the jeep by depositing Rs 1,75,000/- and statement of account further shows that Bolero ZLX was sold for Rs 7,57,013/- and amount of Rs 1000/-was added for temporary RC and number plate amount of Rs 5500/- was added for Bolero Kit and handling charges and amount of Rs 31,029/- was added as Insurance Policy price, as such this statement of account shows that complainant has not paid the amount of Rs 10,500/- shown in the estimate as anti rust coat and it is the case of the Ops that though estimate for anti rust coat was given to the complainant but as he did not deposit this amount and therefore, Ops have performed no such anti rust coat on the Bolero Jeep in question and the statement of account Ex OP-1/2 supports this view. Otherwise also, complainant has come to the Forum with complaint that he paid the amount for anti rust coat but the same was not performed properly by the Ops and in this eventuality, the onus is heavy on the complainant to prove on file that he paid amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coating, which was performed by the Ops, but the same was not proper and due to that reason, Bolero Jeep got rusted but complainant has not produced any receipt, document or any other evidence to show that he paid the amount of Rs 10,500/- to the Ops for anti rust coating. There is only oral evidence of the complainant that he has paid amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coating but the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is natural and would not have been in ordinary course of business that if complainant has paid amount of Rs 10,500/- for anti rust coating, he would have receipt for the same and the bill would have shown that amount of Rs 10,500/- so obtained for giving anti rust coating to the Bolero Jeep but no such evidence has been produced on the file by the complainant. As such, complainant has failed to prove his case on the file.

   12                                               In the light of above discussion, the complainant has utterly failed to prove his case on file and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

   Announced in open Forum:

   Dated: 26.05.2015

   Member                Member             President         (Parampal Kaur)           (P Singla)          (A K Mehta)