RAM MEHAR SINGH KUNDU Vs. HIMGIRI MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revision Petitions, namely R.P. No. 1288/2013, R.P. No. 1289/2013, R.P. No. 1290/2013 are directed against the common order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in F.A. No. 785/2005, "M/s. HimgiriMotors Vs. Ram Mehar Singh Kundu&Ors" ; F.A. No. 870/2005, "M/s. Metro Motors Vs. Ram Mehar Singh Kundu" and F.A. No. 872/2005, "Tata Engineering Marketing and Consumers Support Passport Car Business Unit &Anr. Vs. Ram Mehar Sigh Kundu". In addition, R.P. No. 2399 of 2011has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the State Commission in F.A. No. 871/2005, "M/s. MalwaAuto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ram Mehar Singh Kundu". By way of the impugned orders dated 13.05.2010 and 24.02.2011 respectively, the appeals preferred against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") dated 31.03.2005 passed in C.C. No. 02 of 02.01.2003 were accepted and the complaint was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Tata Indica car DLE(M) F-II bearing registration No. HR-06H-9990,vide invoice No. PCD021724 dated 7.01.2002, from the opposite party No.3, the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1,for total consideration of Rs. 3,41,276/-only.It was alleged by the complainant that the said vehicle suffered from the defects namely the front rims of the said car were defective and developed bent due to which both front wheel, tyres and engine of the said car were damaged; the alignment and balance of the said car remained unbalanced and extra fuel consumption was there. The complainant approached opposite No. 5 on 17.01.2002. OP-5 charged Rs. 1,354/- as service charges but refused to replace the damaged front rims and tyres of vehicle despite the warranty. In the month of February, 2002, the complainant approached opposite party No.5 to replace the damaged A.C. Idler but they could not replace the same on account of unavailability of stock despite assurances of replacement within a month by the said opposite party; thereafter, complainant approached opposite party No.4, who charged him Rs. 975/- for the same. The complainant served legal notice dated 18.02.2002 upon opposite parties as no action was taken by them to resolve the defects.The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala, (in short 'the District Forum') alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties 1 to 5 seeking rectification of manufacturing defects of the vehicle.

(3.) The opposite parties contended that at no point of time the complainant complained about any manufacturing defect in the vehicle during routine service and the service record of the vehicle also nowhere reflects any manufacturing defects. The servicing of the vehicle was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as evident from the different job cards issued. The opposite parties also denied charging for A.C. to complainant and stated that the amount of Rs.1, 354/- was charged as service charges as mentioned in the job card dated 17.1.2002. it was contended by opposite parties that the vehicle in question had met with an accident on 06.04.2002 and the accidental defects were removed when the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 06.04.2002,It is further stated that the defects, if any, in the vehicle might have occurred due to mishandling and mismanagement of the vehicle by the complainant and hence, there was no deficiency of service on their part.