BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.328 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.09.2014

Date of Decision :07.07.2015

Harjit Singh aged about 50 years son of Late S.Satnam Singh, 610-R, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. A.B.Motors Pvt Ltd, 658, Industrial Area-A, GT Road, Sharpur Bye Pass, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Director.

2. A.B.Motors Pvt Ltd, Opp.Delhi Public School, Jalandhar, Phagwara Highway, Jalandhar through its Manager/Proprietor/ Partner/ Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Akhil Chopra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Sanjiv Sharma Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Ford Endeavour Car RC No.CH01 AK 2626 from the opposite party No.2 in the month of September 2011 after payment of billed sum. After being convinced by the sales executive of the opposite party No.2, in addition to the bill cost amount, the complainant made an additional payment of around Rs.10,000/- with additional guarantee of three years inclusive of all repairs and replacement of all the faulty equipments. The complainant presented the impugned car for repairs on dated 11.8.2014 due to some mechanical fault in the silencer. On due verification it was communicated by the opposite party No.2 that some serious repairs are required in the silencer itself which will cost to the complainant to the extent of cost of replacement of the equipment. The complainant requested that the vehicle is under the additional guarantee period of three years so there should not be any cost against the repairs or job work or any replacements. The vehicle was made ready after necessary repairs vide invoice No.CRIAE0280800 dated 11.8.2014 at Jalandhar branch with a promise that the same problem will not be faced by the complainant. The above matter was also forwarded to the Jalandhar office of the opposite party No.1 via email to the opposite party No.2. However, the problem still persists and even today the car is having problems. Moreover, the vehicle is under the warranty agreement but the complainant faced problems in getting the vehicle rectified as per the promises made by the sale executive of the opposite party no.2 at the time of sale of the vehicle. The matter was put forward to the local executive of the opposite party No.2 at its Jalandhar Phagwara, Highway outlet on dated 12.8.2014 through email as well as through telephone for necessary steps, however, the vehicle was deficiently repaired and returned to the complainant in a un-professional manner. The opposite party had withdrawn from its promise to repair the vehicle as per the promises made at the time of purchase of the vehicle and even when the repairs were made the same problem had erupted in the vehicle. Had any actual repairs been done the problem in the vehicle should not have erupted. The opposite parties are indulging in unfair trade practice by not replacing the faulty part of the car of the complainant and if the opposite parties were so certain that the vehicle is in need of major replacement then why an amount of Rs.1550/- was charged vide invoice No.CRIAE0280800 with a promise that the vehicle will not need any further repair. In view of the above the opposite parties are liable for their misrepresentation and deficient service. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon, notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the extended warranty was not granted by any of the representative of the opposite parties or by the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint rather Saluja Ford Chandigarh. Further the vehicle was not covered under extended warranty in any manner as there was condition in extended warranty plan certificate the term/KMs whichever occurs earlier, as stated in extended warranty certificate. The duration of extended warranty commenced from 19.9.2011 and was valid upto 19.9.2014 i.e for a period of 36 months or 1,20,000 KMs, whichever earlier. When the vehicle was brought for service the odometer reading was 127240 KMs meaning thereby that the vehicle was not within warranty as the vehicle mentioned in the complaint has been driven 127240 KMs i.e more than 120000 Kms hence the complainant can not claim any refund on account of alleged extended warranty. Moreover the alleged warranty was not given by opposite parties and necessary party i.e Ford India or Saluja Ford Chandigarh, has not been impleaded in the present complaint, which is apparently, a necessary party since the extended guarantee was given by Ford and not by M/s A.B.Motors individually since M/s A.B.motors is distinct entity from Ford or Ford India. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and evidence of complainant was closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Counsel for the complainant contended that extended warranty was valid till September 2014 but when the car in question was presented for repair on 11.8.2014 due to some mechanical problem in the silencer of the car, it was found that some serious repairs were required in the silencer itself but the vehicle was temporarily repaired and Rs.1580/- charged vide retail invoice dated 11.8.2014 Ex.C3. He contended that although the vehicle was under extended warranty but still it was not properly repaired and above said amount was wrongly charged. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that extended warranty was given by M/s Saluja Ford Chandigarh but any way on 11.8.2014 the car was not within warranty period. He further contended that extended warranty was given for three years or upto 120000 KMs whichever occurs earlier. He further contended that on the above said date when the vehicle was brought for repair it has already run upto 127240 KMs and as such was not within warranty period. He further contended that the vehicle was temporarily repaired as the complainant was not ready to pay the charges for full repair of the silencer as is evident from document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant himself. Counsel for the complainant contended that the fact that extended warranty was upto three years or 120000 KMs whichever occurs earlier was not disclosed to the complainant at the time of giving extended warranty. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. Extended warranty plan certificate produced by the complainant is on record. Although it has not been exhibited by the complainant but opposite party can rely upon the document produced by the complainant whether it has been exhibited by him or not. Extended warranty plan certificate is bearing the stamp of "File" dated 16.9.2014. The opposite parties appeared through counsel on 20.2.2015 and this fact clearly prove that above said extended warranty plan certificate was produced by the complainant. In extended warranty certificate it is mentioned that this extended warranty commences at the expiry of Ford New Vehicle Warranty or extended warranty for term/Kms,whichever occurs earlier, as stated in extended warranty certificate. So in the extended warranty certificate, the expression term/Kms, whichever occurs earlier is specifically mentioned. So, it cannot be said that the complainant was not aware of this fact. The opposite parties have produced transaction and contract registration document Ex.OP2 and on page two of this document in the column of plan term 36 i.e 36 months or three years and in the column of odometer 120000 KMs are specifically mentioned. So it means that extended warranty was for three years or upto the reading of 120000 Kms whichever occurs earlier. On the bill dated 11.8.2014 Ex.OP3 the kilometer reading is mentioned 127240 Kms. So, on that date the car has already covered distance of 127240 Kms and as such it was beyond warranty, as warranty was only for three years or 120000 Kms which ever occurs earlier. The complainant never got the silencer completely repaired from the opposite parties. In email Ex.C1 produced by the complainant himself, it is mentioned as under:-

"the above said car was presented for repairs on dated 11.8.2014 due to some mechanical problem in the silencer of the car. On due verification it was found that some serious repairs are required in the silencer itself which will cost to the extent of Rs.32,000/-. However, the vehicle was made temporarily ready after necessary mild repairs via invoice No.CRIAE0280800 dated 11.8.2014 at Jalandhar branch. It is through this email put forward that kindly advise your service centre to cater the car as the same lies in the guarantee period as your company had charged Rs.10,000/- in addition to cost being the extension of guarantee for a period of three years. The year of purchase of the vehicle is September 2011. Therefore the guarantee period will expire on September 2014".

7. So from this email produced by the complainant himself, it is evident that vehicle was made temporarily ready after necessary mild repairs vide above said retail invoice dated 11.8.2014. As mentioned in email it was found that some serious repairs were required in the silencer itself which would cost to the extent of Rs.32,000/-. The complainant never agreed for complete repair or replacement of the silencer as he was not ready to pay full charges of Rs.32,000/-. So in the circumstances, he can not complain of any deficiency in repair.

8. In the above circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

07.07.2015 Member Member President