IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL DISTRICT FORUM,

AIZAWL DISTRICT, AIZAWL.

…

C.C. No 11 of 2016

Rita Ramngheti

W/o Lalhmachhuana Fanai

           CP Road, Tlangnuam, Aizawl       

Complainant.

Versus

1. The General Motors India Pvt.Ltd.

Through its Director, 3^rd & 4^th Floor,

Plot No. 3, Surinder Jakhar Bhawan,

IFFCO Complex Tower-B,

Sector 32, Institutional Area,

Gurgaon - 122001.

2. Highland Showroom & Workshop,

Through its Manager, A-L Road,

Zemabawk, Aizawl – 796017. 

Opposite Parties.

                          PRESENT

                                          P. SINGTHANGA,   President

E. LALMUANTHANGI, Member

      LALRINPUIA,      Member

Joseph L. Renthlei , VL Nghata Keivom,  Advocates …   for the Complainant.

Francis Vanlalzuala, Malsawmtluangi,  Advocates …   for the Opposite Party No.1

Date of Judgment      -   28.6.2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

The Complainant’s story in brief is that the Complainant had bought a Chevrolet Beat Diesel Engine, O White colour Car with a chassis number MA6BFKNBBT079021, Engine No.10AB5Z112970236 on 5.12.2011 from the Opposite Party No. 2,  authorised dealer by the Opposite Party No.1 on an instalment basis.  The instalment has been paid regularly through HDFC Bank. 

The Car was registered on 09/12/2011 and its registration No. is MZ-01-G-8660. The said Car has been used mostly operated by the husband of the Complainant and has been used only for commuting within Aizawl, and that the car has never been used off-road and had covered a distance of about 30,000 Kms only.   The Car was regularly serviced as per the prescription.  That in spite of the minimal use and the active care taken in handling and the use of the vehicle, contrary to the legitimate expectations of the Complainant and the assurance that were given to her, on the morning of dt.14.02.2015, which was merely 2 months and 9 days after the warranty period,  the engine of the Car abruptly stopped working and the Car could not get ignited.  The matter was immediately reported to the Opposite Party No.2, who came with their engineers to the residence of Complainant to inspect the problem with the Car engine.  The opposite party No.2 after inspection and examination, wrongly reported to the Complainant and her husband that the problem was a result of the inferior fuel quality that was used in the Car.  The Opposite Party No.2 made certain repairs and also replaced certain parts of the vehicle,  for which the Complainant had incurred Rs.34,205/- . The Complainant’s vehicle was taken to the Servicing Centre of the Opposite Party No.2, at the expense of the Complainant.

2. That after 21 days, on 07.03.2015, the said Car was delivered to the Complainant, however, on the way back home  the engine began to create problems and then the Car engine crashed again.  Then, on dt.09.03.2015 the vehicle was taken again to the opposite party No.2.   As per advice by the Opposite Party, the Gasket Fuel Injector was replaced and for which the Complainant had incurred additional amount of Rs.70,000/- for the expenses incurred towards travelling to Kolkata, staying and procuring the Casket Fuel Engine from Kolkata. The Complainant alleged that the complainant  was sold a defective vehicle that has failed to meet the representation, warranties, and assurance that were explicitly and implicitly given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.

3.  The Complainant prayed :-

(a) to hold the Opposite Parties to have practiced unfair trade practice towards the Complainant.

(b) to direct the Opposite Parties to remove the deficiencies in their services and negligence towards the Complainant.

(c) to direct the Opposite Parties to refund the Complainant a sum of Rs.417,329.70 and Rs. 70,000/- for the expenses incurred towards travelling to Kolkata for procuring the Gasket Fuel Engine from Kolkata.

(d) to pay compensation for physical and mental pain, shock, suffering, agonies, hardships, inconvenience and expenses to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.

            (e) to pay Rs.50,000/- for legal expenses to the complainant.

4   The  Opposite Party No.2, submitted that the Opposite Party is stand Firm on all that it has advertised on its website especially regarding an intention in providing its customers “with years of worry-free driving”, a “3 years warranty/100,000 km” (whichever is earlier) and its “24 hours Roadside Assistance Programme” which all falls under the umbrella of “CHEVEROLET COMPLETE CARE” under its “Chevrolet complete care” program the Opposite Party and its Company are willing to provide all the above mentioned services within a “3 years warranty/100,000 km (whichever is earlier).  The Opposite Party  No.2 contended that unfortunately, the Complainant is not able to avail the above mentioned services as their 3 years warranty expired.  The Opposite Party would gladly provide all these services, if only the Complainant approached them within warranty period.  The Opposite Party contended that after the expiry of the warranty period, the Opposite Party is no longer, in anyway, obligated to provide any repair services or any service for that matter for free of cost.  Unless it is a prime facie case of a manufacturing defect, which is certainly not the case in this case.  That an ‘implied warranty’ does not in anyway extend the 3 years warranty period provided by the Opposite Party’s Company.   Had the Complainant taken good care of their vehicle as they have intensely claimed, the present problem which they are complaining about would not have happened.  In fact, the Opposite Party had performed the services above and beyond what is expected of them but the complainant, therefore, the carelessness/negligence on the part of the complainant leads to the vehicular malfunctioning, could not translate into a case of  “deficiency of services”.   The Opposite Party’s employees were doing their best to alleviate the problems faced by the Complainant . The Opposite Parties provided them with numerous services including inspection of the motor parts of the vehicle, cleansing of diesel tanky, changing of fuel filter, taking vehicle for test drives, changing of non-functioning parts like the piston rockers arms. The Opposite Party No.2 contended that had the Car being defectively manufactured, they would have right away approach this Forum during the initial days of purchase.

5. After hearing of both parties and on perusal of materials on record, issues were framed.  Both parties are informed to file their witnesses’ examination-in-chiefs.  The Complainant produced 2 witnesses and was duly crossed examined by the Opposite Party No.2.  In fact what the Complainant’s witnesses had stated in their examination-in-chiefs were stated in the complaint itself.  Similarly, the Opposite Party No.2 also produced 2 witnesses and were cross-examined by the Complainant. The complainant, Smt.Rita Ramngheti stated that she was well aware that the Car comes with three (3) years warranty period or one lakh Km whichever is earlier. She stated that they regularly took the Car for maintenance/service as prescribed by the Car Company.  She further deposed that they faced a problem on 14-2-2015 which they immediately reported to the Servicing Centre which they promptly responded on the same day.  The Complainant witness, Lalhmachhuana h/o the Complainant also deposed in his cross examination that he knew that the Car comes with three years warranty period or one lakh Km whichever is earlier.  When they reported to the Servicing Centre their problem, they responded on the same day by sending two personnel.  He further deposed that the Car was in a very good condition as they regularly serviced the said vehicle as prescribed by the Car Company.

6. After hearing both the ld counsels for the Complainant and the Opposite Parties and on perusal of materials on record, it is evident that the said vehicle bearing registration No.MZ-01-G-8660 was brought to the Opposite Party No.2 after expiry of the warranty period.  Hence, it appears that the Opposite Party, after the expiry of the warranty period no longer, in anyway, obligated to provide any repairs service to the Complainant free of cost.

In view of above, we are of the view that there is neither deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

7. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
8. Give copy of this Judgment and Order to both parties, the Registrar of Consumer Disputes Redressal State Commission, the Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Mizoram.
9. Given under our hands and seal of this Forum on this 28^th day of June, 2017 within the premises and working hours of this Forum.

( LALRINPUIA )          ( P. SINGTHANGA )          ( E. LALMUANTHANGI )

     Member.                           President.                                    Member.

…