General Motors

adminadmin Administrator
edited January 2014 in Automobile

III ADDL,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

No.8,Sahakara Bhavan,Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.

consumer case(CC) No. cc/2412/2008

sMT. SUMANA.B.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The General Motors India (P)Ltd.

The Sundram Motors.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Dr. Subhashini
2. H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA


ORDER


1. (a) This Complaint is filed on 10/11/2008 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint in brief, is as hereunder. The Complainant had booked a Car (Chevrolet Spark LS) with the 2nd Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
Though it was promised that the vehicle so booked would be delivered within four weeks, it was delivered subsequently after lapse of about four months from the date of booking that to as a result of the intervention of the husband of the Complainant who infact had to gift to that vehicle to the Complainant on their marriage anniversary. After quite some time, that vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-2342 was taken to the 2nd Opposite Party for servicing. On the same day evening after servicing, it was delivered to the Complainant. After going home, the Complainant noticed that the wheel caps of that vehicle were damaged. Immediately it was brought to the notice of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party did not bother to verify and replace those damaged/scratched wheel caps. The husband of the Complainant gave a written Complaint to the Manager of the 2nd Opposite Party. Having realized the gravity of the situation, he agreed to replace the damaged caps. However, only one wheel cap was replaced. He told that replacement of the other wheel caps would be considered after the receipt of necessary information from the manufacturing Company of that vehicle namely, the 1st Opposite Party.
Only the left front wheel cap was replaced and the rear left side wheel cap was not replaced inspite of requests. In the circumstances, the above conduct of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency of service and on account of the same, the Complainant has been put to sufferance and loss. Accordingly, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Parties to replace the damaged rear left side wheel cap of the vehicle in question with a brand new one which is free from any defect and to compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the agony and sufferance, she had to undergo along with the cost of the litigation.

(b) Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has chosen to produce xerox copies of three documents marking them at Annexures A to C.


2.(a) The Opposite Parties were called upon to produce their Version of the case. The 1st Opposite Party have entered appearance through Counsel and produced their Version of the case. The 2nd Opposite Party inspite of opportunity, failed to produce their Version of the case. The defence of the 1st Opposite Party, as per their Version which is made available on 24/01/2009 in brief, is as hereunder. The 1st Opposite Party is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956. Without ascertaining the factual position, the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint against this Opposite Party. The Complainant is not a Consumer within the scope and ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Sale Invoice stands in the name of R. Balaji and not in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant is not authorized by that Balaji to file this Complaint against the Opposite Parties. The allegation that the 1st Opposite Party remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant is ill-founded. The relationship between the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party is on principal to principal basis. The 2nd Opposite Party is not an agent of the 1st Opposite Party.
Sale of a vehicle can be either direct or through Dealer of the manufacturer. In the latter case, the vehicle is infact sold by the manufacturer to the Dealer and the Dealer in turn, sells the same to the Customer. There is no involvement whatsoever of this Opposite Party in that case. The allegation of deficiency of service as against this Opposite Party is denied since that allegation is a false one. The Complainant having taken delivery of the vehicle on 08/01/2008 without any dissenting note, cannot make hue and cry. There can be no cause of action against this Opposite Party for the Complainant. This very Complaint as against this Opposite Party is a misconceived one. In the circumstances, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief against this Opposite Party and this Complaint has to be dismissed with the cost of this Opposite Party.


(b) As already stated, the 2nd Opposite Party has chosen to remain absent in this case without any Version. 3. Since a consumer dispute arose, the parties were called upon to produce their evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Accordingly, the Complainant has chosen to produce her affidavit on 16/02/2009. For the 1st Opposite Party, one Yudhvir Singh S/o R.S. Dahiya has sworn to an affidavit which is made available in evidence on 07/03/2009. A list with one document is also made available by way of evidence by the 1st Opposite Party. As already stated, the 2nd Opposite Party this case have neither pleading, nor evidence in this proceeding. At the end, this Forum heard on merits. 4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision in this Proceeding and they are;

(i) Whether the Complainant is competent to invoke the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
(ii) If so, whether the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties is established by the Complainant?
(iii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief in her favour and against the Opposite Parties in this Proceeding?
(iii) What Order? 5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Yes
ii) Yes
iii) Yes
iv) As per the operative portion of the Order here below. 6. We shall strengthen our findings on the following:

R E A S O N S

POINT NO.1 (a):- The Complainant according to the 1st Opposite Party, cannot be a Consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To contend so, reliance is placed upon the receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party regarding booking of the vehicle in question. The copy of that receipt dt.19/10/2007 is Annexure-A made available by the Complainant. That receipt reveals that the 2nd Opposite Party had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from R. Balaji towards the purchase of the vehicle in question. In the context, it is contended that though the amount is so paid by that Balaji to the 2nd Opposite Party, that Balaji is none other than the husband of the Complainant and the booked vehicle was meant to be gifted to the Complainant in their marriage anniversary, Therefore, there is reason to infer that the Complainant is the “beneficiary” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A beneficiary is competent to air his/her grievance in respect of the goods. That apart, the Complainant has made available a xerox copy of the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle and it reveals that the Complainant is the Registered Owner of that vehicle and that it was so registered as long back 09/01/2008 itself and that the said registration was valid from that date till 08/01/2023. It is further revealed in the said registration Certificate that the said vehicle has been hypothicated to Bank of India, Sanjaynagar, Bangalore in respect of the loan availed. Moreover, the Complainant has also made available a copy of a driving license. It discloses that the Complainant is holding a driving license of L.M.V. with effect from 01/02/2008.



(b) Therefore, when the above materials are taken into consideration cumulatively, it is but proper to hold that the Complainant is competent to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Ofcourse, it is for the Complainant to substantiate the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and in case that is established, then and then only the Complainant is entitled for appropriate reliefs and not otherwise. With the above observations this point is answered in favour of the Complainant.


7. POINT NO.2(a):- The 1st Opposite Party admittedly is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. However, the 1st Opposite Party has tried to impress upon this Forum that the 2nd Opposite Party is not their agent and that the relationship interse is principal to principal. Nodoubt, the 1st Opposite Party has made available a xerox copy of a document along with their affidavit on 07/03/2009 by way of evidence. That document is styled as “GM Retailership Agreement”. That Agreement was inforce from 01/01/2006 up to 31/12/2007, as revealed therein. Even though the 1st Opposite Party have tried to impress upon this Forum that the 2nd Opposite Party is independent by themselves and nothing to do with the 1st Opposite Party, the said Agreement so made available by the 1st Opposite Party itself goes to show that the above contention of the 1st Opposite Party is not true to facts. In the said Agreement which is tiled as “GM Retailership Agreement”, Clause-4 deals with the appointment of authorized Retailers of the 1st Opposite Party manufacturing–Company. As per the same, the 2nd Opposite Party is one of their Retailers. As per Clause-4.1 the 1st Opposite Party has so appointed the Retailers to identify themselves as an authorized Retailers of the 1st Opposite Party manufacturing-Company. As per Clause-4.5 of the said Agreement, with respect to activities conducted by or on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party–Company, the Retailer has to carryout the same as per the directions given there-under which includes collection of orders from the Customers, taking delivery of motor vehicles for direct sale, to carry out pre-delivery inspection, to report any damage to the vehicle, to collect the amount on behalf of the manufacturing–Company etc. As per Clause-9.3 of the said Agreement, Retailer has to provide service to all motor vehicles, including the Customer–paid services, whether or not the motor vehicle needing service was sold by the Retailer and the Retailer has to maintain records, as per the suitable format and make them available to the manufacturing-Company. As per Clause-9.4 of the said Agreement, the Retailer has to attend the Complaint of the Customer touching the vehicle. As per Clause-9.8, the Retailer has to provide body repair service for the motor vehicles and the Retailer may provide the same either through their own body shop or through somebody else. When all these factors are considered in the right perspective, there is every reason to conclude that the 2nd Opposite Party is a Retailer/Dealer of the 1st Opposite Party-manufacturing-Company. Wherefore, in the light of the dictum of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (reference to 2006 (1) CPR 263 NC in the matter between Mahantayya V/s M/s Mahalakshmi Tractor and others), it has to be held that the manufacturer deals with the Consumer through the Dealer and for the wrongs committed by the Dealer, the manufacturer is also liable since the liability of the manufacturer and the Dealer is joint and several. When that is the legal position, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party that they are not answerable for the wrongs, if any by the 2nd Opposite Party, as far as the customer Complainant is concerned.



(b) Now the Complainant has aired her grievance on 2 points and the 1st one is, the delay in delivery of the vehicle and the 2nd point is, tampering and changing the wheel caps of the vehicle. In Annexure-B which is made available by the Complainant, there is a recital that the delivery period is indicated as two weeks by the principal. Annexure-B is a xerox copy of the Pricelist of the models of the vehicles including the one referred to in the Complaint. It is generated by both the Opposite Parties. It is the grievance of the Complainant that, the 2nd Opposite Party promised that the vehicle would be delivered within four weeks and failed to so deliver. The 2nd Opposite Party has no explanation to offer in that regard.
As revealed in the evidence, though the booking was made on 19/10/2007, the vehicle in question was delivered only on 09/01/2008. Wherefore, it was for the Opposite Parties to explain the delay in delivery of the vehicle. The 2nd Opposite Party has no explanation. The 1st Opposite Party-Company has taken an indifferent attitude as if they are strangers. Wherefore that unexplained delay would certainly amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


(c) Now it is the contention of the Complainant that, the 2nd Opposite Party while servicing that vehicle, had replaced the original wheel caps with damaged wheel caps and that it was noticed only after taking the vehicle to home and that when it was brought to the notice of the 2nd Opposite Party immediately, though the 2nd Opposite Party rectified the grievance touching the wheel cap pertaining to the left front wheel, the wheel cap of the left rear wheel has not been changed inspite of repeated requests. This contention of the Complainant has remained un-controverted. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to suspect the bonafides of the Complainant regarding the above allegation. As revealed in Annexure-C made available by the Complainant along with the Complaint, an opportunity was provided to the 2nd Opposite Party to rectify the mistake. Annexure-C letter of the husband of the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party is dt.3/3/2008 and though that letter is received by the concerned official of the 2nd Opposite Party, there was no response to the same. As already stated, the 2nd Opposite Party have chosen to remain absent. In the circumstances, the above omissions also would certainly amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


(d) Therefore, in the light of the above legal position as far as the liability is concerned, both the Opposite Parties are answerable to the Complainant in respect of the above deficiency of service. Accordingly, this point is answered. 8. POINT NO.3:- It is the contention of the Complainant that on account of the above commissions and omissions of the Opposite Parties, she was put to agony, sufferance and loss and that the same need be compensated apart from giving a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the damaged rear left side wheel cap of the said vehicle with a new one. What we feel is, the Opposite Parties could have honestly attended the grievance of the Complainant without giving scope for any dispute. It appears wisdom did not prevail upon the Opposite Parties and they have driven the Complainant to this litigation. Wherefore, a reasonable amount need be provided to the Complainant by way of cost and compensation apart from giving a direction for the replacement of that damaged wheel cap. In the fitness of things, we fix that amount at Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, this point is answered.


9. POINT NO.4:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R Since the Complainant has established the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the damaged wheel cap of the left side rear wheel of the vehicle in question with a brand new one and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cost and compensation to the Complainant for the sufferance, agony and hardship to which the Complainant was put to on account of their deficiency of service touching the said vehicle. The Opposite Parties are granted 30 days from this date to comply this Order.

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    B.S.Adishesh, S/o late B.S.Srinivasa Iyengar, Director, Southern Cogen Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Part II, Thandya Industrial Area, Chikkayan Chatra, Thandavapura, Nanjangud, Mysore District.
    ...........Appellant(s)
    Vs.

    Manager, Trident Automobiles (P) Ltd., No.201/1 &201/2, Hunsur Road, Hinkal Village, Mysore-17.

    The Manager, General Motors India Pvt. ltd.,

    The Manager,
    ...........Respondent(s)


    Counsel for the complainant, O.P.2 and 3 filed a joint memo reporting settlement of the claim made in this complaint. In which O.P.2 and 3 have agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards full satisfaction of the claim of the complainant and agreed to issue cheque for the said amount within 4 weeks from the date of this order and counsel for the complainant has agreed to the terms and submitted for disposal of the complaint accordingly. Hence, the joint memo is accept and we pass the following order:- ORDER 1. Complaint is disposed in terms of the joint memo filed. 2. O.P.2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.20,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment. 3. Both parties bear their own costs. 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.

    Counsel for the complainant, O.P.2 and 3 filed a joint memo reporting settlement of the claim made in this complaint. In which O.P.2 and 3 have agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards full satisfaction of the claim of the complainant and agreed to issue cheque for the said amount within 4 weeks from the date of this order and counsel for the complainant has agreed to the terms and submitted for disposal of the complaint accordingly. Hence, the joint memo is accept and we pass the following order:- ORDER 1. Complaint is disposed in terms of the joint memo filed. 2. O.P.2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs.20,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment. 3. Both parties bear their own costs. 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    Sh. Raj Kumar son of Sh. Daulat Ram resident of Village Badineri, Post Office Bhutti, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.



    …Complainant

    V/S



    The Manager Dynamic Motors authorized Dealer of Cheverolet General Motors ,India Pvt. Ltd NH -21 Chakkar Post Office Gutkar, Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P.

    ..Opposite party






    ORDER.

    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The complainant stated that he being unemployed had procured permission for plying taxi from Secretary ,Transport H.P.Shimla. The complainant contacted the opposite party for supply of Tavera taxi vehicle and as per requirement of the opposite party has deposited the margin money near about a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the opposite party supplied him invoice dated 23-7-2007 in the sum of Rs.7,30,470/- and as per the sale certificate issued , the vehicle has been shown as passenger vehicle . The complainant alleged that after purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party, he submitted the papers to the Regional Transport Authority, Kullu for registration as taxi vehicle , but they refused to register the same as taxi vehicle on the ground that the model supplied is not approved for taxi purpose .


    The complainant further stated that the vehicle was financed by Mahinder and Mahindra Finance and the complainant is paying the instalments of the loan without getting the vehicle registered as taxi and without plying the same as taxi . The complainant informed the opposite party that the vehicle supplied to him is not approved vehicle for taxi and to replace the same but the opposite party is delaying the same on one pretext or the other . The complainant further alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co Ltd and has paid the premium of Rs.20,872/-.


    The complainant alleged that due to supply of non approved taxi vehicle by the opposite party, he had suffered monitory loss of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of purchase of the vehicle and had also suffered loss of rebate amount of Rs.38,000/-. The complainant served the opposite party with legal notice dated 8-5-2008 requesting him to provide the approved vehicle for taxi but the same was not responded. With these allegations , the complainant had sought direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,38,000/- alongwith interest up to date with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum .A sum of Rs.20,000/- has also been claimed as special damages apart from cost of complaint.



    2. The opposite party filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer , that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try ,entertain and decide the present complaint, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On merits, the opposite party has admitted the sale of the vehicle to the complainant and deposit of margin money . It has been stated that the complainant has not paid the entire amount at the time of purchase rather issued cheque for RS.5570/- and Rs.1,70,000/- through cheque and cash .


    The opposite party averred that the vehicle was purchased on 23-7-2007 for personal use.. The opposite party admitted that the vehicle was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra, Finance service . The opposite party further averred that the complainant is using the vehicle continuously and the vehicle had covered distance as per mileage shown in job card Annexure R-1. It has been denied that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for taxi purpose and as such the question of rebate did not arise . It has also been pleaded that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is for personal use and there is no deficiency in service on its part . The opposite party had prayed for dismissal

    4. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .

    5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire case file. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party for plying the same as taxi and after the purchase of the vehicle when he submitted the documents to the Regional Transport Officer, Kullu for registering the same as taxi, they refused to register it on the ground that the model supplied by the opposite party had not been approved for taxi purpose. On the other hand the case of the opposite party is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for personal use , however model is approved for personal as well as for commercial purpose in Himachal Pradesh.

    6 Now the question which arises for consideration by this Forum is as to whether the model of the vehicle purchased by the complainant has been approved for plying the same as taxi or not. The opposite party has placed reliance upon the Notification of Secretary, State Transport Authority, H.P.Shimla -4 dated 24-6-2008 annexure R-II wherein it has been mentioned that Chevrolet Tavera ( P7C-BS-II) has been approved for personal as well as for commercial use in Himachal Pradesh .


    Therefore, in view of the aforesaid notification ,it cannot be said that the model supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is not approved for taxi purpose as alleged by the complainant. According to the complainant, Regional Transport Officer Kullu has refused to register the same as taxi on the ground that the said model has not been approved for plying taxi , however no evidence has been adduced by the complainant in this respect. The complainant could have produced the document vide which the registration had been refused by the Regional Transport authority as taxi but the same has not seen the light of the day. No affidavit from Regional Transport Officer, Kullu has been produced on record to strengthen his above claim.


    In the absence of any documentary evidence , it cannot be said that the complainant had submitted the papers to the Regional Transport Authority Kullu for registration and they have refused to register the same. Furthermore, the complainant has failed to establish that the model of the vehicle supplied by the opposite party was not approved for taxi and the opposite party had been deficient in providing service to the complainant.

    7 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.



    8 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.



    9. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Sh. Raj Kumar son of Sh. Daulat Ram resident of Village Badineri, Post Office Bhutti, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.



    …Complainant

    V/S



    The Manager Dynamic Motors authorized Dealer of Cheverolet General Motors ,India Pvt. Ltd NH -21 Chakkar Post Office Gutkar, Tehsil and District Mandi, H.P.

    ..Opposite party





    ORDER.

    This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The complainant stated that he being unemployed had procured permission for plying taxi from Secretary ,Transport H.P.Shimla. The complainant contacted the opposite party for supply of Tavera taxi vehicle and as per requirement of the opposite party has deposited the margin money near about a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the opposite party supplied him invoice dated 23-7-2007 in the sum of Rs.7,30,470/- and as per the sale certificate issued , the vehicle has been shown as passenger vehicle . The complainant alleged that after purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party, he submitted the papers to the Regional Transport Authority, Kullu for registration as taxi vehicle , but they refused to register the same as taxi vehicle on the ground that the model supplied is not approved for taxi purpose .


    The complainant further stated that the vehicle was financed by Mahinder and Mahindra Finance and the complainant is paying the instalments of the loan without getting the vehicle registered as taxi and without plying the same as taxi . The complainant informed the opposite party that the vehicle supplied to him is not approved vehicle for taxi and to replace the same but the opposite party is delaying the same on one pretext or the other . The complainant further alleged that the aforesaid vehicle was insured with Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co Ltd and has paid the premium of Rs.20,872/-.


    The complainant alleged that due to supply of non approved taxi vehicle by the opposite party, he had suffered monitory loss of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of purchase of the vehicle and had also suffered loss of rebate amount of Rs.38,000/-. The complainant served the opposite party with legal notice dated 8-5-2008 requesting him to provide the approved vehicle for taxi but the same was not responded. With these allegations , the complainant had sought direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,38,000/- alongwith interest up to date with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum .A sum of Rs.20,000/- has also been claimed as special damages apart from cost of complaint.



    2. The opposite party filed reply and resisted the complaint by raising the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer , that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try ,entertain and decide the present complaint, that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On merits, the opposite party has admitted the sale of the vehicle to the complainant and deposit of margin money . It has been stated that the complainant has not paid the entire amount at the time of purchase rather issued cheque for RS.5570/- and Rs.1,70,000/- through cheque and cash .


    The opposite party averred that the vehicle was purchased on 23-7-2007 for personal use.. The opposite party admitted that the vehicle was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra, Finance service . The opposite party further averred that the complainant is using the vehicle continuously and the vehicle had covered distance as per mileage shown in job card Annexure R-1. It has been denied that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for taxi purpose and as such the question of rebate did not arise . It has also been pleaded that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is for personal use and there is no deficiency in service on its part . The opposite party had prayed for dismissal

    4. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and controverting the allegations made in the reply .

    5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire case file. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party for plying the same as taxi and after the purchase of the vehicle when he submitted the documents to the Regional Transport Officer, Kullu for registering the same as taxi, they refused to register it on the ground that the model supplied by the opposite party had not been approved for taxi purpose. On the other hand the case of the opposite party is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for personal use , however model is approved for personal as well as for commercial purpose in Himachal Pradesh.

    6 Now the question which arises for consideration by this Forum is as to whether the model of the vehicle purchased by the complainant has been approved for plying the same as taxi or not. The opposite party has placed reliance upon the Notification of Secretary, State Transport Authority, H.P.Shimla -4 dated 24-6-2008 annexure R-II wherein it has been mentioned that Chevrolet Tavera ( P7C-BS-II) has been approved for personal as well as for commercial use in Himachal Pradesh . Therefore, in view of the aforesaid notification ,it cannot be said that the model supplied by the opposite party to the complainant is not approved for taxi purpose as alleged by the complainant. According to the complainant, Regional Transport Officer Kullu has refused to register the same as taxi on the ground that the said model has not been approved for plying taxi , however no evidence has been adduced by the complainant in this respect.


    The complainant could have produced the document vide which the registration had been refused by the Regional Transport authority as taxi but the same has not seen the light of the day. No affidavit from Regional Transport Officer, Kullu has been produced on record to strengthen his above claim. In the absence of any documentary evidence , it cannot be said that the complainant had submitted the papers to the Regional Transport Authority Kullu for registration and they have refused to register the same. Furthermore, the complainant has failed to establish that the model of the vehicle supplied by the opposite party was not approved for taxi and the opposite party had been deficient in providing service to the complainant.

    7 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.



    8 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.



    9. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    1. Preetinder Singh Ramana s/o Mr. S. Inderjit Singh

    2. Mrs. Mandeep Kaur w/o Mr. Preetinder Singh Ramana

    Both r/o House No.1188, New Light Co-operative Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.



    ….…Complainants

    V E R S U S



    1. General Motors India Ltd., Global Business Park, Tower ‘A’, 6th Floor, Mehrauli, Gurgaon.

    2. Dynamic Motors, GM Dealership and Workshop, Plot No.5, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh.

    3. Good Year India Ltd., Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad (Haryana), through its Director,

    4. Good Year India Ltd., Plot No.48, Industrial Area I, Chandigarh.

    ..…Opposite Parties





    Succinctly put, the complainants purchased a Chevrolet Optra Magnum TCDI LS car, manufactured by OP-1, from OP-2 vide invoice dated 29.10.2007 and their misery started from the day of its purchase. On 5.1.2008 when the car had just done 4674 kms., complainant No.1 felt gear stick making very erratic and disturbing noise and the back rest of the driver seat became free all of a sudden.


    Further, a lot of bubbles started appearing on the paint of the rear boot of the car merely within 10 months. When the car was taken to the service station where it was admitted that the paint job of the rear boot was defective. On 7.10.2008 when the car was not even an year old, the alternator of the car developed a peculiar problem when the hazard/malfunction light suddenly got turned on. On 8.10.2008 the problem was supposedly fixed and the car was delivered but after taking delivery when the car had merely run 44 kms. the problem reoccurred and this time the car refused to ignite.


    The car was towed to the service station at the expense of the complainant and again the same alternator parts were changed in spite of request to change the entire assembly. On 20.10.2008 the rear left tyre started making a peculiar noise but the service executives refused to intervene. On 21.10.2008 complainant No.1 approached the OP-4 who reported that the tyre had uneven wear and tear but there was no manufacturing defect. However, the retailer revealed that it was an absolutely mechanical defect but all the efforts made by the complainants fell on deaf ears. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.



    2] In its written reply OP-1 denied that the car was suffering from any manufacturing defect and even no allegation has been leveled against the answering OP. It has been submitted that as the complainants were not satisfied with the colour of the boot and asked for repaint after running 15197 kms., the same was painted to their satisfaction without any charges.


    The alternator was changed without charging even a single penny. Thereafter, on 3.1.2009 the complainants approached for checking of suspension and again not even a penny was charged. It has been submitted that the tyre came under ‘Other Warrantees’ for which the tyre manufacturer was responsible. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.



    3] OP-2 in its reply admitted the factum of purchase of the car. It has been submitted that the complainant approached the workshop of the OP with the complaint of gear liver noise and driver seat loose which were mended after minor adjustments. It has been denied that any bubbles had appeared on rear boot of the car and rather the complainant approached the OP with the complaint that the inside paint of dicky was not as smooth as from outside and it was just for his satisfaction that the dicky was repainted.


    It has been admitted that the complainant approached the workshop of the OP with the complaint of malfunction light and again on 8.10.2008 with the complaint of regulator and the same were changed free of cost. It has been submitted that the complaint of the complainant regarding defective tyres was to be addressed by their manufacturer (OPs 3 & 4). It has been denied that complainant ever approached the workshop of the OP and that any offer to replace the tyres on pro-rata basis was given.


    It has been pleaded that rather the complainant had come for checking of shockers on 3.1.2009 and on checking the suspension as well as the shockers were found in OK condition. It has been submitted that after 3.1.2009 the complainant approached for service only on 3.5.2009 on which date no defect was pointed out and rather the complainant executed a satisfaction note on the back of the job card. Denying that there has been any deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.



    4] In their written reply OPs 3 & 4 admitted that the complainant approached the office of OP-4 on 21.10.2008 for tyre inspection upon which spot inspection was done and the report was given that “found tyre have uneven wear, tyre run flat, its not a manufacturing defect, tyre not adjustable.” Pleading that except the above the OPs did not repair the car, prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua them has been made.



    5] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

    6] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.



    7] The car was purchased by the complainant on 29.10.2007 as is clear from Ann.C-1 but according to him on 5.1.2008 when it had covered only 4674 Kms. the gear stick was making erratic and disturbing noise and the back-rest of the driver seat became free all of a sudden. The OPs No.1 & 2 in Para No.4 of their reply admitted that the complainant approached the workshop with complaint of gear lever noise and driver seat loose. The contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant is that the vehicles was put on sale by the OPs No1 & 2 even without proper checking because if a vehicle had been on a long route at a high speed and the back-rest of the driver seat had fallen behind, it could result in accident endangering human life & property. Obviously, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 in not checking the important parts of the vehicle before taking it out of their workshop.


    According to the complainant, the paint of the rear boot of the car, which was merely 10 months old gave bubbles showing poor workmanship. He has attached the photographs thereof along with the complaint. The car was taken again to the workshop. This fact is admitted by the OPs in Para No.5 of their reply that the complainant had complained about the bubble in the paint of the rear boot of the car. Their contention is that in order to satisfy the complainant, it was repainted. However, the contention of the complainant is that in fact there was defect in the paint due to which it developed bubbles and the OPs had to repaint the same at his request.



    8] According to him when the car was delivered after repaint, the splattered paint could be seen all over the rubber parts, plastic parts, tail lights, rear seat and outside the newly painted area. The car was retained in the Service Station to remove it and was delivered to him with a delay of 3 days. The manner in which the complaint was dealt with and the car was repainted shows that the OP No.2 was utterly negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant, who had purchased from them a car worth more than Rs.9.00 lacs.



    9] The contention of the complainant is that on 7.10.2008 when the car was not even a year old, the alternator of the car developed problem when he was at Nangal, it used to suddenly got turned on and the battery of the car drained out. He approached the authorised dealer regarding which Ann.C-4 was issued. OP No.2 in Para No.6 of the reply admitted that the complainant approached the workshop with complaint of turning on of malfunction light regarding which one electrical part was replaced.


    The vehicle was supposed to have been fixed and the car was delivered on 8.10.2008 but according to the complainant on the same evening the problem reoccurred and the car refused to ignite when it had hardly covered 44 Kms. after rectification of the fault. The car was towed to the Service Station at his expenses but only alternator parts were changed. According to the complainant he had been requesting to change the entire assembly but the OPs did not agree to the same.


    The OP No.2 in Para No.7 of the reply admitted that the complainant had come to the workshop again on 8.10.2008 with this complaint upon which the regulator was also changed. It is also his case that after the car was delivered to him, he observed that the grill and headlights had not been properly fitted and the gap between them had increased affecting the face value of the car, which looked as if the car had undergone a major repair after some accident. The grease stains were visible all over the backseat, which also proves the deficiency on the part of OP No.2.



    10] The next defect pointed out by the complainant is that on 20.10.2008 the rear left tyre started making a particular noise. The matter was reported to the OPs but they refused to intervene. The complainant was advised to approach Good Year Service Station or a retail shop. The OP No.2 admitted this fact in Para No.8 and 9 of his reply that the complainant had complained about the defective tyres which defect was to be addressed by M/s Good Year. The complainant therefore approached OP No.4 on 21.10.2008 but they did not help him. The Spot Inspection Report Ann.C-6 issued by Good Year India Limited, however, shows that the tyre had uneven wear & tear, run flat and was not having manufacturing defect.



    11] According to the complainant, he visited the Service Station 2/3 times and finally on 3.1.2008. The defect in the suspension of the car and the defect in the tyre and its cause were completely knocked down and were reassembled twice to the discomfort of the complainant and termed it as a tyre fault. Annexure C-7 is the Job Card in this respect. The OP No.2 admitted in Para No.10 of its reply that the suspension was checked and the shockers were found in OK condition. The OPs, however, have not been able to explain as to why the tyre was giving noise.



    12] The ld.Counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle was defective, did not have proper paint in the dicky, the alternator was not working properly, the back-rest of the driver seat was loose and the employees of OP No.2 were discourteous and were not attending to the problems properly. They rather tried to mishandle the job whenever the complainant asked for relief whether it was regarding paint or fixing of the gear rod or the tyre. They also detained the car unnecessarily for longer periods to harass him so that he does not come to them again with his complaint.



    13] The ld.Counsel for the complainant referred to the case of M/s. Byford Leasing Ltd. V. S.V.R.Rao, 1995(2) CPC 18 in which case also the car had to be sent to the workshop several times for repair and it was not roadworthy in which case the complaint was allowed. In case Krishan Pahal Vs. Managing Director, Telco and Ors., 2000(2) CPC 543 the clutch plate was defective, which was changed but the applicant again suffered with the same clutch problem and the vehicle was delivered after 5 days but even after this repair, the trouble again arose.


    In that case also the steering and clutch problem occurred, which were not repaired properly and the complaint was allowed. In case M/s Maruti Sales and another Vs. S.L.Grovr, 1995(1) CPC 437 the car paint was cracking and peeling off, which was held to be a case of deficiency in service and compensation of Rs.10,000/- allowed by the District Forum was upheld.



    14] On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OP No.1 referred to the case of Tarsem Kumar Garg Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. & Anr., 2007(3) CLT 575 to argue that the engine had seized due to negligence of the complainant and thereafter the radiator had leaked, which was due to natural wear and tear of the jeep. In the present case, the OPs have not been able to show as to how it was the negligence on the part of the complainant if the paint of the car developed bubbles and was not upto mark or if the alternator was not working properly or gear stick was not properly fixed or the backrest of the driver seat was loose. These were the defects due to the poor workmanship on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and not of the complainant. This authority is, therefore, not helpful to OP No.1.



    15] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental & physical harassment caused to him by delivering a vehicle, which had the defects and had to be taken to the OPs time and again for removing the defects.


    The amount shall be paid by the OPs No.1 & 2 jointly & severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay it along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 28.5.2009 till the payment is actually made to the complainant. The OPs shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
  • adv.singhadv.singh Senior Member
    edited February 2010
    Case No.1067/07

    Shamshad, DB-95F, Hari Nagar, New Delhi – 64.

    …..Complainant

    Versus
    1. M/s.Auto Vikas Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., 12-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi – 15.

    2. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Through its Vice President (Marketing), Global Business Park, Tower-A, 6th floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122002.

    ……..Opposite Parties

    CORAM : J.P. SHARMA : PRESIDENT

    : S.M. MAZUMDAR : MEMBER

    : DR. PREMLATA : MEMBER

    O R D E R

    J.P. SHARMA (PRESIDENT) :

    Brief facts of this case are that complainant Sh.Shamshad purchased vehicle Tavera B3-10 from OP-1 M/s.Auto Vikas who happens to be an authorized dealer and agent of OP-2 M/s.General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (manufacturers). The Regn. No. to the vehicle was allotted as DL-4C-AD-1053 on 19.03.2005. The total price paid for purchase of the vehicle was Rs.6,97,746/-. Complainant’s allegations are that OPs. have cheated him as they have delivered/sold an old and re-conditioned vehicle to him which suffers from numerous manufacturing serious defects from the very beginning. On 25.03.2005, complainant was going from Delhi to Jammu to visit Vaishno Devi Shrine but on the way noticed that the oil pressure light started blinking because of which the vehicle had to be taken to nearby authorized workshop of M/s.Dada Motors at Jallandhar. The vehicle was returned by the authorized service centre saying that the defect had been removed. According to the complainant, the vehicle was under warranty coverage for two years or 50000KM which ever is earlier from the date of delivery while the engine warranty was of 1,50,000KM or five years which ever is earlier. A perusal of the complaint shows that complainant repeatedly noticed pressure light blinking at interval for which the vehicle had to be taken to OP-1 and other authorized centers of OP-2. It is also alleged by the complainant that various other defects were also noticed in the vehicle.

    It was on 22.05.07 that the complainant took the vehicle to OP-1 workshop with specific problem of engine noise at the recorded mileage of 80244KM. The officials of OP-1 after inspecting the vehicle told the complainant that the engine had started making noise due to malfunctioning of oil pump and since the vehicle had oil related problems from the very beginning, the vehicle will be repaired under warranty free of any charges. The job card dated 22.05.07 has been annexed by the complainant with the complaints marked “J”. A perusal of this job sheet dated 22.05.07 refers to customer complaint as follows :-

    i) Engine noise

    ii) Fan Belt Loose

    Contrary to the assurance given by the officials of OP-1 that the vehicle after repairs without any charges would be returned back they demanded from the complainant an amount of around Rs.1.5 lacs. Complainant claimed that he was not supposed to pay the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs since the engine became defective due to inherent manufacturing defect. Complainant did not take the delivery of the vehicle which is stated to be lying with OP-1 since 22.05.07. Complainant ultimately approached this Forum with the present complaint for directions to OP to replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new vehicle of the same make and model or in the alternative refund the price of the vehicle amounting to Rs.6,97,746/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Directions were also sought to OPs. to refund the repair charges to the tune of Rs.19,031/- collected on different dates together with compensation and cost.

    OPs. 1 and 2 filed their written statements and controverted the complainant’s case in toto. Mainly the defence of OP-2, manufacturer has been that till May, 22nd, 2007 the last date till which records are available, the vehicle within a period of about 26 months since its purchase had covered 80244KM which works out at a daily rate of about 105KM. It was pleaded that present vehicle is multi-utility vehicle and is quite often utilized for carrying passengers on commercial basis. The allegations that an old and re-conditioned vehicle had been sold to the complainant were denied. OPs. claimed that no vehicle which is defective from day one can run at such high rate on such sustained basis. OPs.’ case is that complainant is trying to exaggerate the blinking of oil pressure light which serves a useful purpose such as in the nature of intimation of signal as regards certain operational aspects of the vehicle in connection thereof. According to OP the records of vehicle history show that the services undertaken on the vehicle have been entirely in the nature of upkeep and maintenance and that it was wrong to allege that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect.

    In the rejoinder, complainant controverted the averments of OP and reiterated his case as set out in the complaint.
    Parties filed affidavits in support of their rival contentions.
    We have heard Sh.Ashok Kumar – Ld. Counsel for complainant, Sh.Upkar Singh – Ld. counsel for OP-2, have gone through the material on record and have considered their relevant contentions. None appeared for OP-1 during arguments.

    Complainant in para 3 of the complaint has pleaded that as per warranty coverage, the vehicle is covered under warranty of two years or 50000KM which ever is earlier from the date of delivery and that the engine warranty was of 1,50,000KM or five years which ever is earlier. There is no dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 19.03.2005 and lastly the vehicle was taken to OP-1 due to engine noise on 22.05.07 i.e., a little after a period of two years. However, it cannot be lost sight of that the vehicle had covered 80244KM within a period of 26 months. Therefore, the general warranty of vehicle was over by the time the vehicle was taken to the authorized workshop of OP-1 on 22.05.07.

    No doubt the engine warranty was for 1,50,000KM or 5 years whichever is earlier but onus was heavily upon the complainant to establish that the vehicle suffered from defective engine from the very beginning. OPs. have succeeded in establishing that the vehicle has run for about 105KM per day on an average i.e., 80244KM in 26 months. We find merit in the submission of Ld. Counsel for OPs. that no vehicle which suffers from manufacturing defect in the engine from day one can run at such high rate on such sustained basis. Undisputedly, the vehicle had run on an average of 105KM per day i.e., 80244KM in 26 months and it was taken lastly for the service on 22.05.2007 to OP-1 – the authorized workshop of OP-2. A copy of the job card prepared on 22.05.2007 clearly shows that by that time the vehicle had run for 80244KM. Together with the affidavit of Sh.Ashwani Kumar Arya, Asstt. Manager of OP-1 has been enclosed the necessary job cards and the details of job undertaken after the engine noise was reported on 22.05.2007. This witness has also proved on record a copy of the job-sheet containing details of repairs undertaken to remove the engine noise. A perusal of this detailed statement enclosed with the statement of Sh.Ashwani Kumar Arya shows that a large number of parts had to be replaced to remove the engine noise which was put to maximum use without proper service at the desired intervals. OPs.’ Ld. Counsel argued that such expenditure had to be incurred to remove the engine noise by replacing various parts in the engine of the vehicle because of rough use of the vehicle without taking proper care towards its proper maintenance. OP-2, M/s.General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (manufacturers) in para 9 of their written statement have categorically pleaded that the vehicle was being used at a very high rate right since its purchase which would have natural effect on bringing about relatively higher wear and tear as compared to the normal rate of the same. Further OP-2 in para 9 of their written statement have clearly stated that during the period of 26 months when the vehicle was being used 105KM per day on average the vehicle has undergone servicing only on four occasions. OPs.’ categorical plea that the vehicle during 26 months covering 80244KM had undergone the servicing on only four occasions has not been denied in the rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 by the complainant. This fact, therefore, stands admitted by the complainant that the vehicle during the above period of 26 months was only taken for routine check up to OP-1 workshop. The submission of OPs.’ Ld. Counsel therefore, that there has been serious negligence in the maintenance of the vehicle on the part of complainant which resulted into repair of the engine at 80244KM stands substantiated.

    On behalf of complainant the only argument has been that on several occasions the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop on account of blinking of light of oil pressure when switch thereof had to be changed but this circumstance itself in no case makes out that the engine of the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. Complainant has produced no expert evidence to substantiate his allegations that the engine of his vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect in this case and therefore, OPs. having repaired the vehicle of the complainant after it was left there on 22.05.2007 on chargeable basis in no way amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complainant’s claim for refund of the amount of Rs.19,031/- earlier recovered from him towards repair charges also fails as necessary evidence on the point that these repair charges were not to be charged had not been adduced.

    As a result of what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that this complaint is devoid of any merit. The same is therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room.
  • edited December 2013
    hi, this is pankaj gharat from uran. i hav captiva extreme . i m facing gas kit problem for this vehicle . this is the 3 rd time facing same problem . now service center ( nikhil automobile , kopar khairne ) is saying that u hav 2 pay charges for as kit . but i hav already replace the gas kit before 2-3 months . n last time they took around a month to find out the problem. so i am expecting to resolve this problem in warranty . as according to me last time they may have use old gas kit to make me fool . so i request u to kindly please co - operate . thanking you .
  • edited January 2014
    my sister took delivery of a brand new Tavera from Deedi Motors, Pathnamthitta,Kerala( reg no KL03W 7204), delivered on 31-3-13. Since then vehicle is worser than a 2nd hand vehicle and no customer support from the dealer to give proper care. they admit their fault in giving a defective vehicle & not even giving any coverage under warranty.

    the dealer confessed it is a permanent damage of the vehicle.

    request all prospective buyers of GM brand to change your plan and if ethical value still left with GM Motors to replace my sister's vehicle with a new car or give 100% reimbursement inclusive of the strain /shame she had using a totally damaged car which was forced on her.

    Saajeev
    8943334232
Sign In or Register to comment.