Date of filing:29.3.2014
Date of Disposal:22.8.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.
C.C.No.92 OF 2014
Between :
Sri Ch.Krishna Rao, S/o Soma Suryanarayana, Hindu, Male, 56 years, Mothy Vari Choultry Street, Eluru.
….. Complainant.
And
1. A.T.R. Cars Pvt., Ltd., 48-10-22A, Ramavarapu padu Ring, NH-5, Vijayawada -4.
2. M/s Volkswagen Group Sales, India Private Limited, Level 3 & 4, Silver Utopia Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 099.
…....Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 7.8.2014 in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao and Sri K.Subrahmanyeswara Swamy, Advocates for complainant and Sri K.V.V.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased Vento Diesel Car from the 1st opposite party on 13.2.2013 for a total consideration of Rs.10,14,017/- by obtaining financial assistance of Rs.8,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda, Eluru. The opposite parties issued an additional warranty for 730 days or one lakh kilometers apart from usual warranty given by the company. But from the date of purchase of itself the vehicle is giving trouble. When the car gives trouble an indication by glow a bulb in the dash board of the vehicle. The complainant informed the said fact to the 1st opposite party and handed over the vehicle to rectification of the said trouble. The opposite parties several times effected repairs and delivered the vehicle. But the same trouble occurs frequently. While so on 25.9.2013 while the complainant going to Visakhapatnam, near Rajahmundry the car gave trouble and on the advise of the 1st opposite party the complainant handed over the vehicle to the Volks Wagon Service Centre and they delivered the car on 30.9.2013 after rectification of the defect. The same problem arose on 26.10.2013 and again the complainant handed over his car at the service station of the 1st opposite party who got repairs and delivered the same to the complainant. Again on 4.12.2013 the vehicle gave trouble and the complainant tried to move the car, an indication bulb was glow in dash board of the vehicle then the complainant delivered the car at work shop and who attended the repairs and ready to deliver the car. But the complainant suspects that there is manufacturing defect in the engine and therefore asked the 1st opposite party about the roadworthiness of the vehicle for which the service engineer of the 1st opposite party sent a mail stating that if there is reoccurrence of the problem they will take care of the same as per their warranty conditions. It is a clear fact that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect in the engine or its panel instrument but the service people of the 1st opposite party simply keeping the panel instrument in right position and delivering the car without replacing the defective panel instrument or engine which is necessary as per the warranty conditions. The service persons of the 1st opposite party generally explain what was the actual problem that occurred to the car. The complainant spent Rs.8,000/- towards toeing charges and suffered untold mental agony by investing huge amount for purchase of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to take the defective car and supply new defective free car within ten days. Having received the same the 1st opposite party issued a reply with false allegations and admitted the repeated troubles of the car. But the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the car has not given any reply. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to deliver a new car in place of defective car or to pay its value i.e., Rs.10,14,017/- to pay Rs.9,00,000/- towards damages and to pay costs.
2. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their vakalats, but the 2nd opposite party did not contest the matter.
The 1st opposite party filed its version and the version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the 1st opposite party is only an authorized distributor for Volks Wagon cars in Vijayawada to the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party acts only as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and owners manual which was agreed by the complainant at the time of purchase of the car. The complainant purchased the car from the 1st opposite party on 13.2.2013 and made a complaint on 25.9.2013 regarding an indication by glow a bulb in the dash board to his car and handed over the car to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party rectified the defect indicated in the car and it rectified the troubles for two or three times which are not similar in nature. Finally on 4.12.2013 the complainant handed over the car to the 1st opposite party as indication bulb was glowing. After thoroughly checking the car as per Volks Wagons standards the opposite party rectified the trouble and sent intimation to the complainant on 11.12.2013 stating that the defects were rectified and requested him to take delivery of the car. But the complainant refused to take delivery of the car and on the other hand demanded for an assurance about the performance and its roadworthy condition. The 1st opposite party on 18.12.2013 sent a mail intimation to the complainant if there is reoccurrence of the problem they will take care of the same as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Inspite of the said mail the complainant has not taken back the car from the opposite party. On 29.10.2013 the complainant handed over the car to the 1st opposite party to check A/c getting off automatically. The opposite party rectified the same and the costs were also paid by the complainant. Previous to that the complainant handed over the car to the opposite party on 21.6.2013 for service and the opposite party done the service to the car as per the terms and conditions. Hence glowing of bulb for two or three times is not considered to be a manufacturing defect in the car either in the engine or its panel material. The 1st opposite party has appointed the Volks Wagon technical expert to inspect the car and he observed that the car is in roadworthy condition. The complainant gave notice dated 31.12.2013 to the 1st opposite party for which the opposite party issued reply. Even after receipt of the said reply the complainant has not taken back the car from the 1st opposite party and filed this complaint. The car is perfectly roadworthy condition and there are no defects either in engine or its panel. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party towards the complainant and they are not liable to pay either Rs.9,00,000/- or replace the car with new one. Therefore the opposite party pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Sri Banothu Venkateswara Rao, General Manager filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant in not rectifying the defects of the complainant’s car?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased Vento Diesel Car from the 1st opposite party under Ex.A.5 invoice dated 13.2.2013 for an amount of Rs.9,99,912/-. The complainant says that when the car gives trouble an indication by glow a bulb in the dash board of the vehicle. The complainant informed the said fact to the 1st opposite party and handed over the vehicle for rectification of the trouble under Ex.B.1 dated 29.5.2013. The demanded repair was noted in Ex.B.1 as to check malfunction light (hand brake light glowing). The 1st opposite party rectified the same problem and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on the same day. Again the complainant handed over the car to the 1st opposite party under Ex.B.2 dated 29.10.2013 to check A/c getting off automatically. The 1st opposite party effected the repair and handed over the car to the complainant on 31.10.2013. Again the car was handed over to the 1st opposite party under Ex.B.3 dated 5.12.2013 to check malfunction light glowing some time. The 1st opposite party effect the repairs and checked lights, exhaust system, engine compartment, brakes and some other parts of the car and requested the complainant to take delivery of the said car. The complainant says that he suspects that there is manufacturing defect in the engine and therefore he asked the 1st opposite party about the roadworthiness of the vehicle. The service engineer of the 1st opposite party sent a mail stating that if there is reoccurrence of the problem they will take care of the same as per their warranty conditions. Having manufacturing defect in the engine or its panel instrument, the service people of the 1st opposite party simply keeping the panel instrument in right position and delivering the car without replacing the defective panel instrument or engine which is necessary as per warranty conditions. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.1 dated 31.12.2013 stating the above facts and demanding the opposite parties to take the defective car and supply new defective free car within 10 days. The opposite parties received the same under Ex.A.2 and got issued reply legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 11.1.2014 to complainant denying the allegations of the complainant and stated that there is no manufacturing defect either the car or its engine or its panels and requested the complainant to take back the car from opposite parties immediately. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties are using his car by sticking yellow sticker and filed two photos under Ex.A.4.
7. On hearing both side arguments we, the Forum came to conclusion that the complainant purchased the car on 13.2.2013 and as there is trouble in the car he handed over the car to the opposite parties under Ex.B.1 dated 29.5.2013 after three months of purchase to rectify the defect to check malfunction light (hand brake light glowing) when the defect was rectified he take delivery of the car and again he handed over the car to opposite parties under Ex.B.2 dated 29.10.2013 to check the A/c getting off automatically after five months of its 1st check up. The problem was rectified and again he handed over the car to the opposite parties under Ex.B.3 dated 5.12.2013 to check malfunction light glowing some time. The defects of the car of the complainant are different in each time. After rectifying the defects of the car the complainant refused to take delivery of the same and filed this complaint alleging the car has malfunctioning defects. Therefore he demanded the opposite parties to deliver defective free new car, or its value and to give Rs.9,00,000/- compensation. We, came to understand that if the car has manufacturing defect it cannot run for some time. Hence we cannot assume that there is manufacturing defect in the car. It is common when the car is in use it gives some troubles basing on various circumstances and the owner of the car gives it for repairs and if the repairs comes within warranty period, he will get free service for repairs or it is out of warranty he has to pay the charges for its services. In this case the opposite parties are getting repairs for every time when the complainant wants. Therefore we cannot attribute that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant in not rectifying the defects of the car of the complainant. But we can give directions to rectify the defects of the car as per warranty terms and conditions. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects of the car of the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions and hand over free defective car, and to pay Rs.2,000/- as to costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of August, 2014.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Ch.Krishna Rao D.W.1 B.Venkateswara Rao
Complainant General Manager of the
(by affidavit) 1st opposite party
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:-
Ex.A.1 31.12.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.2 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.3 11.01.2014 Reply notice from the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.4 . . three photographs.
Ex.A.5 13.02.2013 Tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.6 . . Booklet of service schedule.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 29.05.2013 Repair order issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B.2 29.10.2013 Repair Order issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B.3 05.12.2013 Repair Order issued by the 1st opposite party.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
