Haryana

Ambala

CC/194/2017

Naresh Handa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ambala Automobile India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Shaurya Bhatia

10 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

         Complaint Case No. : 194 of 2017

                     Date of Institution    : 13.06.2017

                     Date of Decision      : 10.07.2018

 

Naresh Handa s/o Sh.Kanshi Ram aged about 63 years r/o H.No.41, Raja Park, Ward No.11, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1.         Ambala Automobiles India Limited, Authorized dealer of Chevrolet, #1 Near Jail Bridge, Ram Nagar, Baldev Nagar Camp, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City-134007.

            2^nd Address Ambala Automobiles India Limited Authorized Dealer of Chevrolet Village Khudda Khurd, Near Sharma Petrol Pump, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt-133001.

2.         Dynamic Motors, A Unit of RSA Motors Pvt. Limited, Authorized Dealer of Chevrolet Plot No.05, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh.

3.         General Motors India Pvt. Limited Chanderpura Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchamahals, Gujrat.

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                                               

Present:          Sh.Shaurya Bhatia, Adv. for complainant.

                        OP No.1 exparte.

                        Sh.R.K.Vig, Adv. for OP No.2.

                        Sh.Harjot Singh, Adv. for OP No.3.                      

 

ORDER:

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant deals in ornaments having his shop under the name and style M/s N.V.Jewellers and for his personal use and convenience he had purchased a car Chevrolet Beat Model 2012 bearing registration No.HR-01AF-1980 from OP No.2 after obtaining loan from Canara Bank, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala vide invoice No.R08048 dated 17.12.2012 and also got installed a music system having value of Rs.10789/-. The services of the car were got done as per instruction from OP No.1 & 2 but the car was creating problem from very beginning. On 30.06.2014 when the car had travelled 52610 Kms after the service of the car from Op No.1 the engine oil and coolant got leaked from the and its pick up become Zero and the Turbo Charger ASM started giving problem and the complainant took the car to OP No.1 where it was advised to replace Turbo Charger ASM due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant got it changed with the engine oil and separator PCV oil from the authorized service station from Op No.1. On 10.07.2014 and 19.12.2014 again the same problem occurred when the car had travelled 66288 Kms and again the said Turbo Charger ASM was changed with overall service of oil engine. The car started giving same problems after very short period and when the car had travelled upto 129942 Kms on 03.09.2016 the complete service of the engine was got done and again on 03.12.2016 when the car had run 140000 Kms same problem occurred. The car had been got repaired and necessary parts have been got changed but the problem is still exists in the vehicle and the car had run 146800 Kms and when the complainant had visited OP No.1 it was disclosed to him that the car is having manufacturing defect. The complainant has taken the vehicle to the service centre for more than 27 times in a period of 2 years for getting the vehicle repaired.  The Op No.1 had kept the vehicle for more than one week/ two week several times  and the complainant has spent Rs.1,18,950/- for repairing of the vehicle which was having manufacturing defect. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs but to no avail. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C100.

2.                     On notice OP No.1 did not appear and it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.08.2017. Op Nos.2 & 3 have filed their separate replies. OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that present complaint is baseless and has been filed concealing the material facts for harassing it. The Op No.2 had resigned the dealership in May, 2014 and stopped all the sales/ service and repair operations. Before closing the dealership and after closing the dealership the complainant has never lodged any complaint regarding any defect. The car was purchased on 17.10.2012 and the limitation to file the present complaint was upto 16.10.2014, therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation. The defects allegedly occurred on 30.05.2014, 10.07.2014 & 19.12.2014 pertaining to Op No.1. The complainant had brought his vehicle to Op No.2 only on 14.03.2014 for paid service and at that time there was no defect and for paid service Rs.2583/- were charged. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Other allegations have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle has crossed all the warranty limitations as it has run 146800 KMs and the warranty provided by the manufacturer was for 1 lac Kms. The vehicle in question had the history of underbody hit due to negligent driving on two occasions, resultantly the oil pen of the vehicle got damaged and the oil leaked and the vehicle had run without proper lubrication of the engine which caused maximum damage to the turbo charger and the result was consumption of more oil and other issues. Warranty agreement is an agreement vide which both the parties are bound by the same but the complainant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant has spent Rs.60,000/- for service purposes in which Rs.55188/- were for running parts including brake pads etc.  The Op No.3 had provided parts to the tune of Rs.87,000/- under the warranty period. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as there is no expert evidence on the case file and had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle the vehicle could not have crossed mileage of 150000. The Op No.1 and Op No.3 works on principal to principal basis and all are separate legal entity and it cannot be held responsible for the act of others. The complainant had never reported any problem on 30.06.2014 when it had crossed 52610 Kms. He had disclosed that the vehicle was giving less mileage and upon inspection it was found that oil pen got leaked due to hi from the bottom and engine oil as well as coolant of the vehicle in question got leaked.  The turbo charger got damaged due to negligence of the complainant but despite that the same was replaced under warranty as a good gesture. The extended warranty has been provided by some private firm.  It has been denied that the complainant had ever visited 27 times. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the appearing OPs have tendered affidavits Annexure R2/A, Annexure R3/A  documents Annexure R2/1, Annexure R1 to Annexure R3.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle car Chevrolet Beat Model 2012 bearing registration No.HR-01AF-1980 from OP No.2 on 17.10.2012 as per Annexure C4 invoice, Annexure C5 draft and Annexure C6 receipt for Rs.5,00,426/-. It is established on the file that the extended warranty of the vehicle was upto 16.10.2017 as per Annexure C13.  The case of the complainant is that for the first time problem occurred in the vehicle on 30.06.2014 and same was resolved by OP No.1 as per Annexure C7 and at that time the vehicle had run 52610 Kms. As per the complainant version, after repair turbo charger was changed by Op Nos.1 as per Annexure C9 dated 19.12.2014. As per Annexure C10 the engine of the vehicle was overhauled on 03.09.2016, the detail of the parts including turbo charger ASM, is mentioned in this very document.  As per Annexure R3 i.e. history job-sheet of the vehicle wherein it has been mentioned that vehicle was brought for running repair, exhaust gas, recirculation valve and vacuum tank replacement but as per the complainant on this date number of parts were changed including Turbo charger ASM as per Annexure C10 but the Op No.1 in the history job sheet has not mentioned about the same.  The complainant had sent emails Annexure C11 and Annexure C12 regarding providing the details of work done as per the history job sheet.  The complainant again visited the service centre when the vehicle again went out of order on 05.12.2016 Annexure R3. It is mentioned in history sheet that vehicle had brought in towing condition and started problem was checked besides running repair. It is established on the file that the complainant had visited the service time and again as mentioned in Annexure C14 to Annexure C45 during extended warranty for getting the vehicle repaired. The appearing Ops have come with the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the vehicle has run 148000 Kms upto 12.10.2017 and the vehicle had met with an accident more than 5 times (13.05.2013, 14.07.2014, 11.06.2015, 12.10.2017) as per Annexure R3. The Op No.2 further taken the plea that as per Annexure R3 the vehicle had met with accident number of times and the insurance claim has also been taken by the complainant as mentioned in job history of the vehicle (Annexure R3). As per service record placed on the file by the OPs it is clear that there were many defects in the vehicle and the same were removed/rectified as and when the complainant brought the car to the OP No.1 and the parts thereof were also replaced. We should not forget that the complainant had to visit the service station time and again for no fault which stands adequately proved. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 17.10.2012 after spending a huge amount of Rs.5,000,426/- and the extended warranty of the vehicle was upto 2017 but there is no document on the case file that which parts were under extended warranty and would be replaced free of costs.  Due to visiting of service centre time and again for getting the vehicle repaired has definitely caused mental agony and harassment. On this point learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon case laws titled as Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors Limited & Ors. II (2014) CPJ 731 (NC), General Motors India Pvt. Limited Vs. Mitali Aggarwal IV (2014) CPJ 68 (NC), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Rudra Auto mobiles Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. Chandan Mondal & Ors. IV (2013) CPJ 468 (NC) and Tata Motors Vs. Lakhbir Singh & Anr. 1 (2014) CPJ 120 (NC). In the present case, the complainant also claimed the compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, wastage of the precious time and money and other sufferings amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- besides refunding of Rs.1,18,950/- charged by the OPs on account of repair of the vehicle, engine service and changing of its crucial parts and change of turbo charger ASM etc. and refund of the cost of the car i.e. Rs.4,89,637/-. In order to reach at any conclusion this Forum feels that the expert opinion is necessary to proper adjudication of the case, therefore, vehicle was got examined through an expert. Sh.Raj Kumar, Expert after examining the vehicle gave the following report:

I have inspected the vehicle and at that time the reading was 153344.  The vehicle had been run around 3 KM. During inspection I have found that the level of engine oil was less which has been physically checked after putting out the engine oil gauze.  As per complainant the last service was done when the vehicle had run 152054 KM.  At the time of service besides other problems, if any, engine oil is changed by the service provider.  There was noise in the vehicle which was due to wheel baring, suspension problem, break clipper and there was another noise which was appeared after opening of the bonnet.  It appears that due to less engine oil time and again indicates that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  This problem can be rectified if the necessary parts is changed i.e. piston, ring and block.

 

Undisputedly, the vehicle has run 153344 Kms. at the time of inspection made by mechanic called by this Forum on 10.07.2018. The vehicle is still in possession of the complainant but as per expert opinion the problem in the vehicle qua noise and less engine oil can be rectified if necessary parties i.e. piston, ring and block are changed, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the appearing Ops to make the vehicle roadworthy after replacing the necessary parts free of costs keeping in view the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as well as the report of expert besides paying lump sum compensation on account of inconvenience and mental agony caused for taking the vehicle on number of occasions for repair work. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appearing OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant which was to be provided after selling of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, we quantify amount of compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering Rs.15,000/- only because till today the vehicle is in possession of the complainant and moreover the vehicle has already run 153344 Kms, therefore, refunding of cost of the vehicle is not justifiable, therefore, this plea is hereby declined. The complainant has claimed Rs.1,18,950/- and in support of this point he has placed on record some receipts, for the payment made for the service/running repair of the vehicle, but perusal of the bills Annexure C14 to Annexure C45 reveals that he had spent maximum amount for running repairs, changing of oil, oil filter etc.  therefore, the complainant is ceased to claim such amount as no substantial amount has been spent after 03.09.2016 when the engine of the vehicle was overhauled. Accordingly, we partly allow the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the OP No.1 & 3 jointly and severally as the OP No.2 had no concern after May, 2014 as OP No.2 did the service only and after that it had resigned from the dealership. Hence, complaint is dismissed against Op No.2. The OP Nos. 1 & 3 are further directed to make the vehicle roadworthy by replacing the necessary parts as mentioned by the mechanic in his report i.e. piston, rings and blocks free of costs subject to bringing the vehicle by the complainant to service centre within 15 days after receiving the copy of the order and the OPs would repair the same within 7 days thereafter after receiving the vehicle. Compliance of the rest of the order be made within a period of 30 days on receiving the copy of this order failing which the amount would carry simple interest @ 9% per annum for default period till actual realization.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 10.07.2018                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                       

 

 

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                                                                                      MEMBER