DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 C.C. NO. 160/2017

Date of Institution: 24.04.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 02.04.2024

Judgment Passed on: 02.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in services in not repairing his TVS WEGO Two Wheeler and even not refunding the cost of the vehicle.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one TVS two wheeler on 25.05.2016 for Rs.59100/- from OP1 and after one month he got the vehicle serviced for the first time on 22.09.2016 and second service was done on 01.12.2016 and third service was done on 15.03.2017 and vehicle at that time had run 967 kms., 2840 kms. and 5492 kms. respectively. However on 31.03.2017 i.e. just after 15 days of third service the engine of the TVS WEGO got seized and vehicle stopped at Darya Gunj where from it was picked up through TVS Auto Break down service from Darya Gunj and was dropped at TVS service centre at Shahdra i.e. in the workshop of OP2 for repair on same day. On 01.04.2017 i.e. next day he received a call from OP1 that his TVS WEGO has been repaired and charges are Rs.1,500/- towards the repairing and for complete overhauling cost, and it came to knowledge of the complainant that the engine of the said vehicle got seized on account of not changing of oil/nil-oil and also that the complete engine of the vehicle has been overhauled without his consent and because of complete overhauling of the engine the market value of the vehicle has become almost nil which amounts to deficiency in service and complainant had suffered mental tension, agony and harassment on account of this overhauling of the vehicle without his consent as such he has filed the complaint against OP1 i.e. the authorized dealer, who sold the vehicle, against OP2 i.e. S.D. Motors who is service station of OP3, and against OP3 i.e. the manufacturer, claiming of Rs.59,100/- as the cost of the vehicle and Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation charges.
2. OP1 has been running ex-parte and OP2 and OP3 have filed their joint written statement.
3. It is stated in the preliminary objection that complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, same is without any cause of action and is frivolous and vexatious. On merits, the fact that complainant has purchased the vehicle is not disputed but it is submitted that as per the book manual/user manual it is clear that complainant had not been adhering to the service’s schedule of the vehicle. It is further submitted that on 13.10.2016 the vehicle was brought, with accidental damages caused by the complainant which was thoroughly attended to by the service centre and the complaint was resolved, second service was carried on 14.12.2016 and the vehicle at that point of time had no specific complaint and service was complete to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant again on 29.12.2016 came to service centre and made a complaint that ‘horn not working’ and the same was also attended, to the satisfaction of the complainant who gave rating 10 out of 10 towards his satisfaction. The third service was to be availed between 5000-6000 kilometer or 6 month from the date of purchase which ever was earlier and complainant approached the OP2 after 7 months but the same was attended to in terms of condition of warrantee. On 31.03.2017 also when the vehicle got stopped then the road side assistance was granted and team of expert technicians checked the vehicle and it was communicated to the complainant that the crank shaft and complete overhauling of the vehicle had to be carried out and after receiving the consent of complainant, job card was raised and after doing the necessary repairs the complainant was requested to test the vehicle and also take delivery but complainant has refused to take the delivery of the vehicle in spite of the repeated calls and requests made and not only this the complainant told the OP that he has already bought another vehicle and so he will not take back this vehicle which was lying at the OP2’s service station. He also stated that he wants full refund of the vehicle. It is further submitted that since there is no allegation either in general or in specific with respect to nature of manufacturing defect, the complaint is not maintainable and since all the services has been done, there is no deficiency in service by the OPs and thereafter complaint is not maintainable. In this circumstance the complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder thereby denying the contents of the written statement and reaffirming and re-asserting the contents of the complaint. It is denied that the complainant has taken the vehicle on 13.10.2016 to the OP after that accidental damage. It is also denied that he gave any complaint of ‘horn not working’ to the OP or that he had not been adhering to service schedule of the vehicle.
5. Complainant has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit whereas OP2 has filed evidence of Shri Manish Aggarwal, Authorized Signatory.
6. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the record and nut shall the complaint of the complainant alleging the deficiency is that he purchased the vehicle from OP1, manufactured by OP3 and had been getting regular service from OP2 who is authorized service centre of OP3 and the last paid service was done from OP2 on 15.03.2017 and his vehicle’s engine got seized within 15 days thereafter and since he had availed paid service from OP2 who has not serviced his vehicle properly which resulted into his engine seizure and the OP has overhauled the engine, which has lowered down the market value of his vehicle and therefore he is liable for compensation on account of deficiency in service. However his main grievances is that OP had overhauled his engine which has resulted in lowering down the market value of his vehicle.
7. The defense of the OP on the other hand is that the vehicle of the OP was duly serviced after having left at OP2’s address and after repairing, complainant was informed that vehicle has been repaired and he may collect the same after paying Rs.1500/- towards charges and since complainant has not come up to pick up the vehicle, there is no deficiency on the part of OP2.
8. The Counsel for complainant has appeared and has argued and he was asked as to how he co-relates the deficiency on the basis of paid service and how it should be presumed or concluded the OP2 has charged the amount towards the engine oil and then has not changed or put the engine oil, as it is not clear from the bill that any engine oil has been put in the vehicle of complainant on the day of 3^rd service. The Counsel for the complainant has gone through the bill and even has candidly conceded that apparently it is not being reflected that complainant has paid the charges for engine oil and OP2 has not put the engine oil into the vehicle.
9. Further there is a difference of 15 days approximately when the last service was done i.e. on 15.03.2017 and when the engine got seized. There is no mechanical inspection of the vehicle which might have demonstrated that there was no damage to the vehicle during in those 15 days or to prove the source of leakage if any. Leakage of the oil in the vehicle could only have been asserted through mechanical inspection, which has not been done and there is no other source to ascertain the such. The leakage, is either on account of some loose packing or on account of some damages to the chassis and if the mechanical inspection of the vehicle would have been done, it would have been got proved, as to whether no engine oil was put in or whether it was put or has got leaked. Therefore the contention that the engine of the vehicle got seized on account of no oil, has not been proved.
10. Further it is the case of the complainant himself that his vehicle was repaired and he was informed by OP2 to collect the vehicle and he did not collect the vehicle. Therefore on this ground also it cannot be held that there was any deficiency on the part of OP2 as it is the complainant who has not gone to collect his vehicle.
11. The next contention of the complainant is that the OP2 has overhauled his vehicle without his consent which has diminished the market value of his vehicle whereas the contention of the OPs is that since the engine got seized the complete oiling was to be done and the consent of the complainant was taken orally. It can be safely presumed that if the vehicle has been left at the service centre then the service center has to do the needful either by taking consent or even without consent and what the OP2 has done is that he has repaired the seized engine by overhauling it. This was the minimum, which was required to be done by the service centre and this was the only purpose for which the vehicle was sent to OP2. Even if the contention of complainant is accepted that overhauling of the engine was done without his consent then also one fact is clear that, this was the requisite repair which was to be done and this cannot be termed as deficiency in service. This fact, would not allow the complainant, not to pick-up his vehicle from the OP2’s workshop.
12. The next contention of the complainant is that it has reduced the market value of the vehicle. This contention of complainant is also without any merits as no evidence to get such facts apprehended has been placed on record. What was the market value of the vehicle on the day of handing it over to OP2, and what would have been the value of the vehicle, if the complainant would have taken the delivery of the vehicle after overhauling is only a remote conjecture and is without any basis or evidence. These contentions have also not been proved by the complainant. In any case, this fact does not give any liberty to the complainant, not to pick-up the vehicle or not to accept the advice of the OP2 to pick-up the vehicle. None picking-up of the vehicle by complainant cannot be turned as deficiency on the part of the OPs.
13. Therefore keeping in view the totality of the circumstance that the OP2 has provided the needed service to the complainant and it is the complainant who has not gone to collect his vehicle from the OP2, it cannot be held that there is any deficiency on the part of OP2.
14. As far as OP1 and OP3 are concerned no deficiency of service has been proved against them as OP1 has sold the vehicle for consideration and there is no deficiency in it and as for as OP3 is concerned he is the manufacturer of the vehicle and in absence of any mechanical inspection or expert opinion no liability can be a fixed on OP3.
15. Accordingly, the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OPs. The complaint case of the complainant is therefore dismissed. 
16.  Copy of the judgment be sent to all the parties.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 02.04.2024.