Appeal No. 25 of 2017. Case: Khem Chand Vs FCA India Automobiles Private Ltd. and Ors.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. 25 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate
JudgesJasbir Singh, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 13(c)
Judgement DateMarch 28, 2017
CourtUnion Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Dev Raj, Member, (Chandigarh)

  1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.09.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum'), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No. 721 of 2015 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

  2. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Fiat Punto car (Registration No. CH-01-AJ-0982), manufactured by Opposite Party No. 1, from Opposite Party No. 3 on 19.8.2011 by paying a sum of Rs. 6,32,646/-. It was further stated that in the year 2013, the complainant faced problem in the car regarding more engine oil consumption and also poor pick up, which was solved by the Opposite Parties at that time. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the car again gave the same problem and also problem in clutch. The complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.5.2015, 24.6.2015 and 3.7.2015 and thereafter also the complainant visited Opposite Party No. 2 many times. Lastly, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.9.2015 to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

  3. 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 seeking various reliefs.

  4. Opposite Party No. 1, in its written version, stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It was further stated that had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would not have functioned a day. It was further stated that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant in the year 2011 and the alleged complaint was filed in the year 2015 after extensively using the car. It was further stated that the complainant had failed to place on record expert opinion establishing any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that the complainant himself remained negligent in getting timely service of the vehicle as per service schedule. It was further stated that the complainant took the vehicle for 3 rd service on 12.10.2013 at mileage of 27831 KM and 4th service was got done on 13.02.2015 at mileage of 51149 KM after a gap of 15 months and coverage of 23318 KM. It was further stated that service was required at every 15000 KM or on completion of 12 months whichever was earlier. It was further stated that the complainant was supposed to follow terms and conditions of warranty/extended warranty policy. It was further stated that neither there was any...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT