BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint. No.446 of 2012
Date of instt.14.09.2012
Date of order: 19.02.2015
.
Sushil Kumar son of Shri Chela Ram proprietor S.S.Enterprises, shop No.17, New Grain Market, Kurukshetra. .
………Complainant.
Vs.
1.Aaaryaman Automobiles, 117/6 KM Milstones, GT Road, Karnal through its General Manager.
2.General Motors India Pvt.Ltd. registered office Chandrapura Industrial Estate Halol 389351, District Manchmahals, Gujrat through its General Manager.
………Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……….Member.
Argued by Sh.Parveen Mann Advocate for the applicant/complainant.
Sh.Ram Phal Narwal Advocate for the OP no.1.
Sh.Chandbir Mandhan Advocate for the OP no.2.
ORDER:
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant has purchased a new brand car from the OP no.1 make Chevrolet Optra on 16.3.2011 for a valuable consideration of Rs.9,45,000/- against retail invoice No.R00409 dated 16.3.2011 for his personal use now bearing registration No. HR-07Q-7077. The OP no.1 is the authorized dealer of OP no.2 and the OP no.2 is manufacturer of the car in question. The aforesaid car was having warranty of 2 years or 50000 KM ( whichever is earlier) from the date of delivery by a GMI retailer or the date of first registration of the motor vehicle whichever occurs first. The complainant is getting his car service as per schedule of company from time to time with the OP no.1. The complainant visited the OP no.1 on 24.8.2012 for routine service of the said car with the complaint that rainy water has entering in the Diggi of the car. The aforesaid car was serviced vide Job card No.1520 dated 24.8.2012. The complaint of the complainant aforesaid alongwith other defects were removed under warranty without cost. On 27.8.2009 there was a rainy day and car of the complainant all of sudden broke down in Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. The complainant immediately intimated this fact to the agency of OP no.1 at Kurukshetra. After sometime a person from the said agency came and took the vehicle to the agency at Kurukshetra . They could not remove the defect and sent the vehicle to the OP no.1. on the next day i.e. 28.8.2012. The car of the complainant was checked on 28.2.2012 in the presence of the complainant but the OP no.1 did not prepare the Job card. However, the Works-Manager of the OP no.1 orally told that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the car and to remove the said defect the entire engine will be over hauled. The complainant again visited the OP no.1. on 31.8.2012 and asked them to deliver the car after removing the defect as the car of the complainant has remained with the OP no.1 from 27.8.2012 to 31.8.2012. On the asking of the complainant, the OP no.1 prepared the job card no.1494 dated 31.8.2012 and thoroughly checked the car. After checking the car the OP no.1 told the complainant that there was major defect in the car and the cost of the same will be paid by the complainant. The complainant told the OP no.1 that car was still in the warranty period, the complainant is not required to pay any amount regarding the repairs of the car but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the Ops be directed to remove the manufacturing defect of the car or to replace the engine of the car and to pay the compensation for the harassment. He has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
2. On notice the Ops appeared. The OP no.1 in its written statement has raised the preliminary objections that the complaint was not legally maintainable; that the complainant has got no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.
On merits, it was contended that the warranty was offered by the manufacturer under specific fulfillment of certain conditions. The complainant never got his vehicle serviced at the workshop of OP no.1 at proper intervals and time period. It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP no.1 because entering of water in the engine (Hydrostatic condition) was not covered under the warranty and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP no.1 and dismissal of the complaint was sought. OP No.1 has also tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents.
The OP no.2 has also contended that water entering in the engine (Hydrostatic condition) was not covered under the warranty and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP no.2 and dismissal of the complaint was sought. The OP no.2 has also tendered his affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith the documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops on the allegations that on 27.8.2012 there was rainy day and the car of the complainant broke down and the complainant reported the matter to the agency of the OP at Kurukshetra and the representative of the OP No.1 took the car from agency at Kurukshetra but the defect was not removed and the complainant was allegedly told that there was manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant has alleged that there was major defect in the engine which was to be repaired free of cost because the said car was under warranty but the Ops have failed to remove the said defect. On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant has prayed for replacement of the car and to pay compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses.
However, as per contention of the Ops, there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the defect which has occurred in the said car was due to water logging/Hydrostatic lock and the same was not covered under the warranty. He has further pointed out that work of the said car was done in view of the letter dated 10.3.2012 Ex.OP1/2 wherein the complainant had admitted that there was water logging/hydro static lock defect in the said car and the same was not covered under the warranty and he has ensured to make the payment of the repairs.
5. Therefore, after going through the evidence and circumstances of the case, it emerges that the defect in the car of the complainant had taken place on account of water logging/hydro static lock which has been admitted by the complainant in the letter Ex.OP1/2 and shown in the job card Ex.OP1/3. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T.Chandigarh in case Rajiv Dhiman Vs.Maruti Udyog Limited and others 1(2007)CPJ 101 has held as under:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g)-Motor vehicles-Hydro static locking due to ingress of water in engine- Break down of vehicle- Not Manufacturing defect- Alleging defect not covered under extended warranty-Present defect caused by misuse/negligence/abnormal use/insufficient care-Failure of engine components, thus not covered under warranty- No defect or deficiency in service-OP not liable.
Therefore, the present defect of the vehicle due to water logging/hydro static locking was not defect or deficiency in service and the same was not covered under the warranty. It is pertinent to mention here that the then President of this Forum had passed the following order on 8.12.2012
“In our opinion under condition No.3(1) OF Owner’s Manual (Operation, Safety and Maintenance), defect which appeared in the engine as the water has entered in the engine of the car, was not covered under the warranty. Money has to be paid by the complainant for getting removed the said defect.”
6. Therefore, in view of the evidence and the circumstances of the case and in view of the order dated 8.10.2012 passed by the then President of this Forum, we hold that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and as such we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 19.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
Present Sh.Parveen Mann Advocate for the applicant/complainant.
Sh.Ram Phal Narwal Advocate for the OP no.1.
Sh.Chandbir Mandhan Advocate for the OP no.2.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated: 19.02.2015
(Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member.
