Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/97/2015

Sanga Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.through Authorised Representative Manish Maheshwari S/O Kamal Kishor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Kandoi s/o Lat. Rameswar Lal Kandoi - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Jain

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

APPEAL NO: 97/2015

 

Saga Automotive (India) Pvt. Ltd.,Plot no. C & E-114, Opp.Urban Cooperative Bank, Road No. 8, VKI area, Jaipur through authorised representative Manish Maheshwari & ors.

Vs.

Ashok Kandoi s/o Late Sh.Rameshwarlal Kandoi, r/o B-01/526, Chitrkoot, Ajmer Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

 

APPEAL NO: 1095/2014

 

Ashok Kandoi s/o Late Sh.Rameshwarlal Kandoi, r/o B-01/526, Chitrkoot, Ajmer Road, Jaipur

Vs.

Saga Automotive (India) Pvt. Ltd., S.B.Tower, Plot No., 9, Sahakar Marg, Lalkothi, Jaipur through Director & ors.

 

Date of Order 23.7.2015

 

2

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali-Member

Mr.Kailash Soyal-Member

 

Mr.Paras Jain counsel for the Saga Automotive

Mr.Yatindra Sharma counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of learned DCF Jaipur 2^nd dated 25.11.2014 by which it allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party in the original complaint to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint for replacement of the car Skoda Laura purchased by him from M/s.Saga Automotive on 17.10.2010. The complainant in his complaint alleged that air conditioner of the car was not performing since beginning and on 25.1.2011 the car developed some problem in the horn and there was noise in the gates. He

3

 

left the car for servicing with the opposite party. After that the car developed the problem of engine heating and he had to call the mechanic who advised that vehicle will have to be cooled off after long drive. In February 2012 the air conditioner of the vehicle stopped working and clutch was also not working. The complainant submitted that the vehicle was under warranty and the opposite party may be ordered to replace the vehicle. The opposite party filed its written reply before the learned DCF and denied the allegations of the complaint. They have submitted that the manufacturer of this car is situated at Aurangabad (Maharashtra) and they have to send for the original parts from the company which takes time. They also submitted that they have replaced the air conditioner costing Rs.46,404/- and horn, clutch plate, bearing, cylinder which were giving problems have been replaced under the warranty. They have also submitted that this vehicle had met with an accident 2-3 times and the vehicle had come to their workshop for repairing after the accident. They have submitted that this complaint has been submitted out of malafide intentions.

 

The learned DCF after hearing both the parties however rejected the relief for replacement of the vehicle but allowed Rs. 1 lakh as compensation on account of mental agony and the

4

 

ordeal undergone by the complainant in taking his vehicle to the workshop.

 

Appeal no. 97/2015 has been filed by the opposite party challanging the findings of the learned DCF and Appeal no. 1095/2014 has been filed by the complainant praying for replacement of the vehicle and other reliefs.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that this vehicle was under warranty for five years and from the beginning the vehicle could not perform as air conditioner, horn, clutch etc. were defective. These were all manufacturing defects and the learned DCF should have ordered replacement of the vehicle. He further submits that whenever the vehicle was taken to the opposite party it was detained for many days and was delivered back only after long time. He has stated that this vehicle is still lying in the workshop of the opposite party since January 2014 and then the vehicle has developed problems and is not in a road worthy condition.

 

The learned counsel for the opposite party has refuted these arguments. He has submitted that only two year's warranty was given by the manufacturer on this vehicle. During this

5

 

period the air conditioner had some problems which was replaced free of cost and similarly other defects in the clutch, horn etc. have been rectified by replacing the components free of cost. He has submitted that since the original parts have to be sent for from Aurangabad, it takes time. He has admitted that the vehicle is lying in the workshop but the complainant is not ready to get it repaired on payment basis. He has submitted that this vehicle has met with an accident 2-3 times and many times the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repairs after accident. He has also submitted that the complainant had also filed a fresh complaint no. 9/2015 with the learned DCF and had prayed for interim relief but the learned DCF has rejected the interim relief for repairing the car free of cost.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant relied on 1 (2003) CPJ 69 (NC) Krishan Kumar Vs. Raheja Automobiles and II (2006) CPJ 64 (NC) R.Raja Rao Vs. Mysore Auto Agencies.

 

The learned counsel for the opposite party had relied on (2006) 4 SCC 644 Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar and 2012 NCJ 676 (NC) Kumari Namrata Singh Vs. Manager – Indus.

6

 

We have perused the record and have considered the respective contentions of both the learned counsels.

 

It appears from record that the vehicle was sent for first free service on 25.1.2011, till then there was no problem. Second free service was done on 10.5.2011 at 30160 km. and it was also a routine check up. Third paid service was done on 30.8.2011 at 45174 km. and it was also a routine service. On 3.1.2012 the vehicle was again sent to whokshop for routine repairs, then clutch master cylinder was replaced under warranty. On 29.12.2011 this vehicle was sent for workshop for accident repairs and a sum of Rs. 15,542/- was paid by the complainant for this job. This vehicle was again sent to workshop on 18.1.2012 for accident repairs and a sum of Rs. 8772/- was paid by the complainant. Thus, twice this vehicle had been sent to workshop for repairs when the car met with an accident.

 

So far as the defects in the air conditioner , horn and clutch is concerned, these items have been replaced by the dealer under warranty free of cost. The prayer for replacement of this car has no basis as the judgment of the learned DCF shows that this vehicle had covered 70,000 km. till April 2012 , 95120 km. till December 2012 and 1,45,805 km. till June 2014. The

7

 

opposite party had filed an affidavit to this effect before the learned DCF. The argument that car is still lying at the workshop since January 2014 has no relevancy in these appeals as this complaint was filed in the year 2012 with the allegation as stated in para no. 4 & 5 of the complaint stating that the car's gate locks and horn were not working and there was noise coming from the gates and para 5 states that air conditioner of the vehicle was not working. It is not disputed that air conditioner, horn and other minor problems have no longer exist. After this complaint when the vehicle has covered almost 1,45000 km.Other defects are not subject matter of this complaint. If there are any subsequent developments after this complaint, that cannot be dealt here.

 

During the arguments the learned counsel for the opposite party also disclosed that a fresh complaint has also been filed by the complainant which is pending before the learned DCF Jaipur. As far as the impugned order of the learned DCF is concerned and the appeals against this order, we find that Appeal No. 1095/2014 filed by the complainant has no merits. No prayer for replacement of the car can be accepted merely on the ground of defective horn, noise from the gates or defective locks. No major problem or manufacturing defect was disclosed

8

 

in the complaint filed before the learned DCF on the basis of which replacement could have been asked for. As regards the Appeal No. 97/2015 filed by the opposite party, we do not wish to interfere with the findings of the learned DCF who has awarded Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony to the complainant. Ofcourse the complainant had to take his vehicle for minor repairs to the workshop and he was deprieved of his vehicle for many days at every time since the original parts were not available and they hace to be sent for from Aurangabad. Thus, the compensation awarded to the complainant is justified and we do not wish to interfere with the findings of the learned District Forum.

 

Consequently, both the appeals failed and deserves to be dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member Presiding Member

 

nm