First Appeal No. 195 of 2014. Case: Kamaljit Singh Vs Broadway Auto Engineers. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 195 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Ravinder Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, Advocates |
| Judges | Sham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 212 |
| Judgement Date | July 10, 2014 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Sham Sunder, J. (President)
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.5.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). The facts, in brief, are that a representative of opposite party No. 1, allured the complainant, to purchase one Force SUV, on the pretext that, it had engine of Mercedes, which could never breakdown during journey. On such allurement, the complainant purchased the said vehicle, on 1.2.2012, for which, he paid a sum of Rs. 11,00,738, as price. An amount of Rs. 1,07,445, on account of road tax and insurance, in respect of the said vehicle, was also paid by the complainant. It was stated that, at the time of delivery of the said vehicle, opposite party No. 1, handed over two keys of the same, to the complainant. It was further stated that, since one of the keys was found broken, the complainant brought the same, to the notice of opposite party No. 1. The complainant was assured that the broken key would be replaced, with a new one within a week. It was further stated that, from the very beginning, the said vehicle started giving various troubles, time and again. It was further stated that the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for rectification of defects in the said vehicle, time and again.
-
On 2.2.2012, the complainant went to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, to get his vehicle repaired, as he noticed an extra gap, in its rear right hand side door, defective auto-cut of the indicators, and for the replacement of rear vendor cover mat. It was further stated that, on 9.3.2012, again the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, as the vehicle encountered various defects, such as engine missing, bubbling on road while driving, and the meter cluster started showing wrong signals and defective reading.
-
On 23.6.2012, the complainant had to visit opposite party No. 1, again with various troubles in the vehicle, such as defects in the cluster meter, engine stopping/missing more frequently, bubbling problem, key of the vehicle stopped working and the average of fuel consumption remained between 6-8 kms/ltr., instead of the claimed average of 15 kms. per ltr., rear vents of the AC were not working properly, as a result whereof, cooling in the same was negligible and the reverse fuel indicator was also not working properly. It was further stated that, however, opposite party No. 1, failed to rectify the defects aforesaid, properly.
-
It was further stated that, again on 3.8.2012, the complainant had to visit the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for the defects, referred to above. It was further stated that, by that time, in addition to the defects aforesaid, various other problems also erupted in the said vehicle. It was further stated that, since the AC of the said vehicle was not fully operational, the complainant could not enjoy the same, in peak humid weather. It was further stated that the complainant had to pay visit to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, on a number of occasions, for rectification of the problems/defects, which erupted in the vehicle, in question, very frequently.
-
It was further stated that, on 18.7.2013, when the complainant was driving the vehicle, in question, it suddenly stopped, as a result whereof, it had to be towed to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1. It was further stated that opposite party No. 1 conveyed to the complainant, that fault in the engine and AC vent of the vehicle, in question, was beyond repairs. It was further stated that since the vehicle, in question, was landed with opposite party No. 1, for a long time and its engineers/mechanics failed to rectify the defects therein, the complainant was forced to hire and use a taxi cab, on monthly rent basis, to the tune of Rs. 33,000, from M/s. Gurleen Tour and Travels, in order to perform his professional duties, etc. It was further stated that since 18.7.2013, the vehicle, in question, has been lying in the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for rectification of defects, referred to above, but, its engineers/mechanics failed to rectify the same, despite their several efforts, and, as such, the same (vehicle), suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. It was further stated that since the vehicle, in question, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, which were beyond repairs, opposite party No. 1, was asked to refund the price thereof, along with interest and compensation, but it failed to do so. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of opposite party No. 1, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing opposite party No. 1, to refund the amount of Rs. 11,00,738, i.e. the cost of the vehicle, in question, paid by him, as also Rs. 1.07 lacs, in respect of insurance amount and road tax, along with interest; and Rs. 1 lac, towards hire charges, paid by him, to M/s. Gurleen Tour and Travels, on account of hiring taxi(s).
-
Opposite party No. 1, in its written version (sic) the sale of vehicle, in question, to the complainant. It was stated that, as and when the vehicle, in question, was brought to the Service Centre of opposite party No. 1, for minor defects, the same were rectified, to the satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that remote key of the vehicle, in question, was broken/damaged, on account of negligence of the driver of the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial