IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 23.12.15 Date of hearing: 05.08.2024 Date of Decision: 08.10.2024 FIRST APPEAL NO.-626/2015 IN THE MATTER OF

1. M/S SATYA SERVICE STATION L BLOCK, JAIL ROAD, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110064 …Appellant No 1

2. M/S RAJIV MOTORS (A UNIT OF SATYA SERVICE STATION LTD.)

(THROUGH ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR)

L-BLOCK, JAIL ROAD, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110064 …Appellant No 2 (Through: Mr. Shagun Bhatnagar, Advocate)

VERSUS

1. SMT. SAMEENA FAROOQI, W/O SH. ZUBAIR, R/O H/NO. D-256, GROUND FLOOR, ABDUL FAZAL ENCLAVE, PART FIRST JAMIA NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110025 …….Respondent No 1

2. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD.

(THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)]

9/1 R.N MUKERJI ROAD, CALCUTTA 700001 …….Respondent No 2 (Through: Mr. Nikhil jain , Advocate)

CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Ms. Shagun Bhatnagar counsel for both the Appellants.

None for the Respondent.

PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased one Ambassador Car bearing No. DL 11 CA-3570, on 11/10/2013 paying Rx6,17,261/- for personal use this New Car, it was assured that it has no manufacturing defect and assured to provide satisfactory services. The car delivered to the complainant started giving problem, the ignition was not well, exhaust smoke was more, and pickup was very low. The engine was giving noise, turbo charger was defective, it used to stop on way and the engine oil used to leak. The car was sent to the respondent workshop on various occasions of which the detail has been mentioned in Para-5 of the complainant, only after 8 to 10 days of its purchase, there was a problem in its steering. The respondent deliberately has not mentioned so many short comings on job card which were pointed out by the complainant. The respondent was charging for repairs when the car was still under warranty. She could not use this vehicle for her benefit, she has to travel from Bulandshaher to Delhi for getting the Car repaired. This has resulted in an expense of Rs.25000/-. The respondents were aware of the problems in the car which could not be rectified by the company. They have taken the decision to stop the production of this car. The complainant has paid the total amount of Rs.7,34,885/- which she is entitled to get back with 18% interest. She has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

The respondent No.2 & 3 filed their reply. They have raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction. It is also alleged that the respondent have rendered satisfactory services to the complainant. The respondent No. 2 & 3 had never given any assurance to the complainant with respect to the engine of the car. The car was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. They have admitted that the car was brought to their work shop as mentioned in the complaint.

Rest all the allegations have been denied.

Respondent No.1 has also filed their reply wherein plea of territorial jurisdiction has been raised. They pleaded that allegations are frivolous, misconceived, and baseless. The vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect, whenever the vehicle was brought at the dealer's workshop, the problems were rectified with utmost satisfaction. There is no ground for replacement of the car. The complainant has concealed the material facts. All the problems were related to normal wear and tear. The odometer reading shows that the vehicle was plying on the road and has almost covered 4616 Km, Had there been any manufacturing defect it should not have covered this much distance. The car was sold to the complainant after rigorous test without any defect.

Complainant filed affidavit in support of his contention. Respondent No.1 has also filed the affidavit of Mr. Gyan Nath Tiwari. No affidavit has been filed on behalf