Before till State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum U.P Lucknow
(Original Jurisdiction)
Consumer Complaint No………………… of 2001
Sri …………… s/o ………………
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Complainant
Versus
(1) M/s. Hata Engineering Co. Ltd., Chembur, Mumbai
Opposite party No. 1
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(2) ……………………
Opposite party No. 2
Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The complainant begs to submit as under :
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. That the opposite party No. 1 is a manufacturer of Truck engines and chassis and the opposite party No. 2 is the dealer for the district of Allahabad, of the said products of the opposite party No. 1.
2. That the complainant purchased a diesel truck bearing Engine No. T 336960411 and the chassis No. C 111563134 from opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 630,712.00 on 13.11.2000 vide their cash memo No. 1346 of the even date.
3. That the opposite party No. 2 also issued a warranty card in respect of the said vehicle whereby the O.P. No. 1 assured the complainant for smooth and perfect working of the engine of the vehicle
4. That on 15.12.2000 the driver noticed some defects in the engine of the vehicle and soon reported to the opposite party No. 2 for removal thereof. The O.P. No. 2 sent the vehicle to their workshop and according to them the defects were removed. However, the same defects were again noticed in the engine on 19.12.2000 and the same were again attended to by the works engineers of the O.P. No. 2 and the complainant was assured of smooth running of the engine. But the defects were found on diverse occasions and every time the driver had to report the matter to the O.P. No. 2 and each time the defects were removed by the engineering staff of the O.P. No. 2.
5. That the complainant has so far reported the defect as pointed out earlier on seventeen occasions. Although the defects are removed by the engineers of the O.P. No. 2 but in that process sufficient time in lost with the result that the vehicle remains off the road giving substantial loss of money on account of non-handling of business during that period by the complainant.
6. That the complainant requested the O.P. No. 2 to change the vehicle as the vehicle sold to the complainant is not working properly and also according to the terms and the conditions of the warranty.
7. That the O.P. No. 1 was also served with a notice to change the vehicle but no reply has come from it’s end.
8. That the cause of action arose in the city of Allahabad on 15.12.2000 and the value of the goods sold to complainant is below Rs. 20 lacs therefore this Hon’ble Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
9. That the complainant has lost 85 working hours in getting the vehicle repaired on different occasions besides passing through mental agony due to faulty working of the engine of the vehicle.
10. That in the interest of justice the vehicle should be replaced by a new one by the opposite parties and they should pay compensation to the complainant @ 600/- per hour for 85 hours amounting to Rs. 51,000/-.
Prayer
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the complaint be kindly allowed, the complainant be granted relief as under :
(1) Direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle of the complainant by a new engine and chassis.
(2) Direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 51,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
(3) Direction to the opposite parties to build or cause to be built a body of the Truck on the new chassis at their own cost, and
(4) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the complainant’s case.
Sd/- Complainant
Verification
I, ……………… the complainant do hereby verify that the contents of this complaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, that no part hereof is false nor any material has been concealed.
Verified today dated …………….. at Allahabad.
Annexure : As per statement enclosed
Image Source: chdconsumercourt.gov.in
Deponent