BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.284 of 2020
Date of Instt. 09.09.2020
Date of Decision: 30.10.2023
Harneet Singh aged about 35 years, Prop. M/s M. K. Metal Industries, A-4, C-14, Focal Point, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Audi India, Head Office:3 North Avenue, Level-3, Maker Mixity, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East-Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra, Through its Mg. Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Jay Cee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., C/o SKF Bearing, Opp. Dhandari Kalan, Railway Station, G. T. Road, Ludhiana, Through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Navjot Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased one Audi E-4, 35 TDI Technology Car (Colour White) from the OP No.2, vide Invoice No.V-048 dated 29.09.2018 for Rs.35,65,300/- from the OP No.2. The OP No.1 is has good reputed brand for manufacturing and selling the high end cars under the brand Name "AUDI". The OP No.2 is an authorized dealer of the OP No.1 for selling the Audi Car. Being dealing in cars, the OPs are duty bound to sell cars without any defect. The said car was purchased with guarantee and warrantee of two years from the OP No.2 and it is still in warranty period. After two months of purchase of said car, even after paying huge amount, the car started giving problems and there was some fault. Thereafter the car was handed over to the OP No.2 and was returned to the complainant but the said car kept on giving problems again and again. There is ‘Drive problems again System Fault’, ‘Pick Up Low’, in the said car since the date of purchase and that defect in the said car is inherent manufacturing defect and the said defect still has not been rectified by the OPs. The complainant in the month of February, 2019 i.e. just after five months reported the said fault to the OP and also sent one email to the OP on 19.02.2019 of which reply was duly received. The said reply dated February, 2019 is attached herewith. In the said reply, the opposite parties have themselves written there is some defect in the car and in February, 2019 that have themselves emailed that it will be delivered on 6th March, 2019. It means that the said car kept on lying in their service centre in the month of February 2019 to 6th March, 2019. Similarly, email from opposite party dated 22.02.2019 and 28.02.2019, have mentioned the fact that there is a "Drive System Fault" in the newly purchased car. The emails of opposite parties are evidence and prove that car in question is defective one and there is a "Drive System Fault" in the said car and car became defective within four months after the purchase. The car was used to send from Jalandhar to Ludhiana at the expenses of the complainant and the complainant has borne extra cost and has suffered lot of mental harassment and agony due to the defect in the said car. On 6th March, 2019 the car was delivered to the complainant and the complainant paid extra cost for the same but it started giving problem once again after 20 days. The acknowledgment to the said fact was given by the OPs vide their email dated March 25, 2019, in which it has written that the driver of the OP Paramjit was sent to collect the car. Even after the delivery of the said car in March, 2019, the car has same defect, but the OPs advised that the Drive Fault System and Low Speed Problem will get normal after some long drive. On this, plea given by the OPs, the complainant continue to using the car in a hope that after driving E for some kilometers, the Drive Fault System and Low Speed Problem will solve, but all in Vain. Thereafter the complainant kept on approaching the OPs and informed that even after driving for long drives, the defect of Drive System Fault and Low Speed Problem kept on haunting the complainant and did not get rectify. The car kept on lying in the service centre of OP No.2 and the said fact has been mentioned by OP in their email dated November 9, 2019. The complainant repeatedly made calls and send emails to the OPs asking them to remove the defect in the car but the said defect has not removed/rectified and the car has drive fault and low pickup and the car kept on lying without any usage in the premises of the complainant in non-working condition which has further caused mental harassment and tension to the complainant who has spent such a huge amount for purchasing the said car. The Drive System Fault is still in existence and the car is still in warranty period. The email dated June, 8, 2020 is the proof of the same, in which the opposite parties themselves have written that diagnosis is required. In the month of August, 2020, the car was again sent to the OPs due to the above fault and the said facts have been mentioned in the correspondence with the complainant by the opposite parties themselves and even in the month of August 2020 with them with the same fault and it is continuously giving same problem/fault from the beginning, which made crystal clear that there is "inherent Manufacturing Defect" in the said Car. The car suffered from number of defects due to which it still has Drive System Fault and low speed problem and that complaint have been made again and again by the complainant but the defect could not be rectified. The complainant being purchaser has suffered a lot, even after spending huge amount and the car is still suffering from number of defects/problems. By selling the car with manufacturing inherent defect, the OPs have provided defective car to the complainant which is against the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the OPs have violated the provisions of such act by selling defective car to the complainant which has containing the defect since the date of its purchase. By not attending the complainant properly and repeatedly forcing him to pay for sending the car to the OP No.2 the complaint has suffered damages, pain, agony and the OPs have committed unfair trade practices and deficiency in service towards the complainant. The complainant through its counsel served a legal notice to the OPs and the OPs served a false and frivolous reply to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the said car with new one or to refund the amount of Car Rs.35,65,300/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but notice sent to the OP No.1 not received back after elapsing of more than 30 days and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through its Authorized Signatory and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and deliberately suppressed the actual matrix. Even otherwise having regard to the contentions put forth by the complainant the claim of the complainant not being sustainable by any plausible grounds, thus the claim as set out in the complaint is not maintainable under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that the claim propounded by the complainant is an afterthought and the complainant is merely trying to mislead this Commission by making self serving statements. It is further averred that no cause of action has arises in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP to file the present complaint. The answering OP has performed its duties and provided its services to the complainant with utmost efficiency. It is further averred that the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed since it is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law being a plethora of lies and bundles of misrepresentations. The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission in a most unscrupulous manner and has filed the present complaint in a most frivolous manner by concocting a false story. Thus, it is pertinent to state the correct factual position before this Commission so as to demonstrate the contemptuous acts of the complaint and to show that the complaint is not all entitled to any relief whatsoever and is rather liable to be saddles with exemplary cost alongwith dismissal of the complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the Audi Car by the complainant for Rs.35,65,300/- is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant approached the OP No.2 about the car having problem of engine malfunction and for the poor pickup and the car was sent to the showroom of OP No.2 and the factum with regard to receipts of emails and reply to the emails is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, carefully gone through the complaint, written version of the parties and evidence and documents brought on the record by the parties.
6. It is proved that the complainant has purchased one Audi E-4, 35 TDI Technology Car (Colour White) from the OP No.2, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 dated 29.09.2018 for Rs.35,65,300/-. The complainant has alleged that after two months of the purchase, the car started giving problem of ‘drive system fault’ and ‘pickup low’. This fact has been admitted by the OP No.2 that the complainant approached the OP No.2 about the car having problem of engine malfunction and for the poor pickup. The car was returned to the complainant, but despite that the defect could not be redressed and as per the submission of the complainant, the fault was never redressed even till today. The car is not in working condition. The complainant has proved on record the emails and reply to the emails shared between the complainant and OP No.2. The complainant has alleged that despite spending huge amount of Rs.35,65,300/- and after giving the car to the showroom for number of times, the car has same defect. The OP No.2 tried to convince the complainant that this problem will get normal after some long drive, but till today the problem has not been resolved.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has admitted the purchase of the Audi Car by the complainant for Rs.35,65,300/-. This fact has also been admitted by the OPs that the car was sent to the showroom of OP No.2 number of times, but it has been alleged that the problem of the complainant was redressed and the required part was replaced. The receipts of emails and reply to the emails has also been admitted by the OP No.2. The defence of the OP No.2 is that due to excessive smoke built in exhaust because of poor quality of fuel, engine was malfunctioning.
8. The document i.e. Invoice is not disputed. It is proved that the complainant purchased the car on 29.09.2018. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 are the replies given by the OPs dated 07.02.2019, 08.02.2019 and 11.02.2019, vide which the complainant has been informed that the diagnosis of the car of the complainant is under progress and the Audi India Technical Team is inspecting the car. All these replies clearly show that near about after 4 months, the car was sent to the showroom for repair or for diagnoses as some fault occurred in the car. The car had to be sent to the showroom despite spending the huge amount of Rs.35,65,300/-. Ex.C-6 is also the reply given to the complainant by the OP No.2 vide which they have admitted that the car was reported with the concern of engine malfunction and pick up poor. Again the complainant was informed that the rectification of the same is under progress and taking time more. Vide Ex.C-7, the complainant has been informed that ‘the concern occurred due to excessive soot/smoke built in exhaust system of car possible due to short trip drives or most likely due to poor quality of fuel’. Vide Ex.C-8, the complainant was informed that that ‘the required part has been ordered and the same will be replaced the moment, they get the part from the Audi India.’ Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are also regarding the same concern. Ex.C-11 is the reply given by the OP No.2. As per Ex.C-11, it was found that ‘Diesel particulate filter needed replacement. This replacement was need after four months of the purchase of the car’. Vide Ex.C-12, the complainant was informed that ‘the part has been received and the replacement job is in progress’. Vide Ex.C13 Rs.2000/- were demanded and on March 7, 2019, the car was stated to be ready. Ex.C-15 is also with regard to same concern. From the replies given by the OP No.2, it is proved that the car remained with the OP No.2 for about more than a month for repair and vide Ex.C-16, on March 13, 2019 the complainant was informed that the problem is because of the travelling within city and this vehicle is meant for long drives. There is continuous correspondence between the complainant and the OP No.2. The complainant has informed the OP No.2 that the delivery of the car was not taken as the persons brought the car were not technical and there was a technical issue, which was not redressed. Vide Ex.C-31, the complainant has emailed the OP No.2 on October 25, 2019 that car is lying without any work since last one month. Ex.C-35 shows that this email is dated June 8, 2020, vide which the complainant has been informed the issues i.e. Drive system fault-Vehilce under diagnosis process, LHS Day time running light not working-found damage, Washer Cylinder empty-require to fill water check leakage under observation, Pick up low- under diagnosis and Engine light malfunction-under diagnosis. Vide Ex.C-39, the complainant was informed that the problem has been redressed and rectified as per guidelines. This email is January, 2020.
9. The OP No.2 has also produced on record the emails and reply to the emails given by the OP No.2 to the complainant. All these facts have been admitted by the OP in their reply to notice Ex.OP2/19. In this reply, they have admitted that even on 18.01.2020, the complainant reported that engine of drive system fault was malfunctioning and is glowing. Again on 14.07.2020, the car was reported to the OP No.2 with the complaint of drives system fault which was glowing on the display of the car. They have again alleged the fault of the fuel.
10. From the documents, filed by the both the parties, it is clearly proved that the complainant has purchased the Audi Car for Rs.35,65,300/- for his enjoyment and for fulfilling his aim or purpose/dream. It is also proved on record that despite spending this huge amount, most of the time, the car remained in the showroom for fault in system malfunction and the glowing of the display. After four months of the purchase, the need arose to replace the part and after one year again the need arose to replace the part again, meaning thereby that within two years, the parts were replaced twice as per the admission of the OP No.2. Within these two years, the complainant kept on making correspondence with the OP No.2 complaining about the malfunctioning of the car. The OP has alleged that the problem in the car arose because the complainant drove the car within city and this is meant for long drive. It has not been proved that at the time of purchasing the car, the complainant was informed that this car is meant for long drive only and not for drive within the city nor any guidelines or instructions have been proved on record by the OP No.2 to prove that this car Audi is not meant for driving within city. Had there been any information to the complainant, the complainant might have not purchased the car as he might have required the car both for driving within city and long drive. If such was the case, the complainant would have purchased the car useful both for driving within the city and for long drive. The allegations and the defence of the OP is vague and baseless. Such a costly car could not have been meant only for long driving.
11. The next contention of the OP No.2 is that the problem is due to poor quality of fuel. The complainant himself is not the manufacturer/producer of the fuel. The car has been manufactured keeping in view and considering the oil conditions prevailing in India. No opinion of any expert has been produced on record by the OP to show that this problem was due to poor quality of fuel. The defence of the OP No.2 is contradictory. As per Ex.C-11 after four months, it was diagnosed by the OP No.2 that the diesel particulate filter need replacement, meaning thereby that there was defect in diesel particulate filter. This defect was found after four months of the purchase of the car. The OP has taken defence that the problem is either due to poor quality of fuel or drive within city. The OP is not clear about the cause of the defect. This clearly proves that the car itself was defective at the time of sale of the car to the complainant. It has been proved that the exhaust was not clogged due to poor quality of fuel, but it was clogged due to bad and poor quality of the part fitted in the car. As per the admission of the OP No.2, the sensor was also required to be replaced. This clearly proves that the car was not in a proper working condition at the time of sale. It seems that the car sold to the complainant was not new one with so much defects in the car. Most of the time, it remained in the showroom and the complainant could not enjoy the drive of the car despite spending huge money for the car. He has to face mental as well as physical as well as financial harassment and loss because of the conduct of the OPs. This is clearly cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2 by saying that the defect is due to poor quality of fuel, which is not in the hands of the complainant. The complainant would never prefer to fill the car with poor quality of fuel after spending Rs.35,65,300/- for purchase of car. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
12. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to replace the car with new one of the same model, if the complainant wants to purchase car of new model, then he will have to bear the cost of difference of car of new model within two months, failing which the OPs shall be liable to return the price of the car i.e. Rs.35,65,300/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase, till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The compliance (compensation and litigation expenses) be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
30.10.2023 Member President
