Skip to content


Sujit Shivshankar Singh Vs. M/S. Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMaharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. A/368 of 2013
Judge
AppellantSujit Shivshankar Singh
RespondentM/S. Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and Others
Excerpt:
.....as repayment. case of the complainant has been elaborately appreciated by the learned district forum. complainant was never happy with performance of the car purchased from the asset auto india pvt.ltd., who is the distributor of the cars. there is also no dispute that the opponents have carried out the repairs which is evident from the job cards available on record as and when required. very nominal amount has been charged for repairs undertaken by the opponents. car was admittedly purchased from the distributor, namely, m/s.asset auto india pvt.ltd. and the complainant has failed to implede the said distributor as party to the consumer complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant. it is the case of the complainant that m/s.asset auto india pvt.ltd. is a sister concerned.....
Judgment:

Narendra Kawde, Member:

[1] Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District has decided the consumer complaint bearing no.189/2010 (Mr.Sujit shivshankar Singh vs. M/s.Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and ors.) by an order dated 27/09/2013 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present appellant/original complainant [hereinafter to be referred to as complainant against the original opponents/present respondents [hereinafter to be referred to as opponents]. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of the District Forum by filing this appeal. Appellant has stated that the order passed by the learned District Forum is bad in law and against the provisions of natural justice. Further, it is averred that learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the problem with exhaust pipe assembly, head light lamp, power window, switch gear, diesel guard in the car are not manufacturing defects, though the complainant pleaded effectively. Though, there was continuous problem that occurred within three months from the date of purchase of car and elaborately mentioned in the consumer complaint, yet the learned District forum did not appreciate the contentions of the complainant and dismissed the consumer complaint.

[2] None is present for the respondents/original opponents. Hence, we have heard Mr.Samji Joseph-learned advocate of the appellant/original complainant on the point of admission.

[3] There is no dispute about purchase of the car as on 12/06/2008 from Asset Auto India Pvt.Ltd., who is not impleded party to the complaint for Rs.7,15,883/-. At the time of purchase, down payment of Rs.1,67,485/- was made and rest of the amout was paid by availing loan from the finance company with equated monthly installments of Rs.14,812/- as repayment. Case of the complainant has been elaborately appreciated by the learned District Forum. Complainant was never happy with performance of the car purchased from the Asset Auto India Pvt.Ltd., who is the distributor of the cars. There is also no dispute that the opponents have carried out the repairs which is evident from the job cards available on record as and when required. Very nominal amount has been charged for repairs undertaken by the opponents. Car was admittedly purchased from the distributor, namely, M/s.Asset Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and the complainant has failed to implede the said distributor as party to the consumer complaint for the reasons best known to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that M/s.Asset Auto India Pvt.Ltd. is a sister concerned of original opponent no.1. However, there is nothing on record to show that the said distribution company is also owned and administered by the opponent no.1. Job cards available on record reveals the nature of repairs/replacement of the parts carried out by the distributor of car at the nominal costs as below:-

 

27/06/2008Rs.1,300/-
21/07/2008Rs.2,000/-
31/12/2008Cost free
09/08/2008Cost free
08/09/2008Rs.3,300/-
 
[4] It is argued by the learned advocate of the complainant that the complainant was given false information about efficient performance of the car by the opponents. Therefore, during the first three months of purchase of the car, the complainant was required to incur expenses of Rs.50,000/- on various repairs and sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- as he was required to hire taxi for commuting to his work. There is no substantive evidence to support the contention of the complainant available on record. Fact remains that the car was used for more than two years with mileage of 20,710 kms from the date of purchase i.e. 12/06/2008. It is only in the year 2010, complainant approached the District Forum for filing his complaint. We do not find any satisfactory explanation as to how the complainant was using the car with 20,710 + kms.

[5] Opponents defence is that the loan of Rs.7,15,883/- was extended by M/s.International Autotrac Finance Ltd. which is sister concern of the opponent no.1. Fact remains that the complainant has failed to repay the loan due to his own fault and therefore this legal proceedings have been initiated just to hide the fault of the complainant to settle the loan dues as per the terms and conditions. We do not find any rebuttal from the complainant to the statement made in the written version and affidavit evidence by the opponent no.1. It is also ground of the complainant that only after carrying out the proper technical check through approved agencies, cars are sent to the dealers for further retail sale. Moreover, standard techniques and quality control certification is in favour of the vehicle in dispute. As against this, the complainant, as we find on the record, has not adduced any expert evidence from the approved automobile institution to establish manufacturing defects as alleged in the complaint.

[6] Learned advocate of the complainant failed to explain as to why complainant failed to take the delivery of car after repairs since December 2009. Car as it is reported by the complainant is still in possession of the opponents. Learned District Forum has properly appreciated the authorities relied upon by the complainant in respect of the claim stating that the complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence to establish manufacturing defect. In view of these observations, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum cannot be faulted with and therefore, appeal is not admitted and disposed off accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //