HIRA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED Vs. GURSHER SINGH SULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this order we shall dispose of both the above mentioned appeal as they have arisen out of the common order dated 5.3.2004 passed in Complaint No. 287 of 1999.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the present case are that complainant (respondent No. 1 in both the appeals) had purchased a Esteem bearing Registration No. HR -01F -6015, Chassis No. 226950, Engine No. 589491, Model 1998, on 9.2.1998. The grievance of the complainant made in the complaint is that there were manufacturing defect in the car which he faced since the purchase of the car. The complainant made several complaints to the opposite parties in this regard. On several occasions the car in question was got repaired from the Opposite Party No. 1, but the defect could not be removed. Hence, this complaint.

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite parties contested the complaint. In the separate written statements, they denied the allegations levelled in the complaint. In the preliminary objections it was stated that the District Forum, Ambala had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the car in question was purchased from Patiala and as per the allegations, levelled in the complainant the complaint was got repaired at Chandigarh. They further took the plea that the vehicle in question was purchased on 9.2.1998 and the warranty was valid only till 8.2.1999 and during this period no complaint with regard to any deficiency or shortcoming in performing warranty services by the opposite party No. l was reported by the complainant and the present complaint was filed in May, 1999 i.e. much after the expiry of warranty period. The vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. l for warranty services and other routine maintenance services and when the demanded repairs were satisfactorily carried out by the opposite party No. l and benefits of warranty were provided to the complainant. It was further stated that Modern Automobiles or the mechanic on whose oral opinion, the complainant has sought relief, is not a party to this complaint and the averments made by the complainant in Para No. 4 of the complaint cannot be appreciated without any cogent and convincing proof without impleading Modern Automobiles as a party to this complaint. More so, the brake system has no nexus with the engine of the car and for rectifying any defect in brakes, the engine of car need not be opened. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint vide its order dated 5.3.2004 and granted following relief: