Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/447/2014

Suresh Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Audi India - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv.

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	447 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	28.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	18.01.2016

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Suresh Singla s/o Late Sh.Ranauq Ram, R/o House No.1332, Sector 4, Panchkula.

 

2]  Ankur Bansal s/o Sh.Arjun Dass Bansal, R/o House No.576, Sector 7, Panchkula.

 

             …..Complainants

Versus

 

1]  Audi India, Division of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400099

 

2]  Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.171, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

 

3]  HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.124-125, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, through its Manager/ authorised representative.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

                   MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

        

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Manish Jain, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh.V.K.Sachdeva, Adv. for OP-2.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP-3

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainants in the year 2010 purchased Audi A6 2.7 TDI bearing Regd. No.HR 02 X 0002 for personal use. It is averred that though the vehicle was registered in the name of Harmony Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., but the same is used by the complainant NO.1, who is the director of the Company for his own use and complainant NO.2 who is the son-in-law of complainant No.1.  The vehicle was got serviced by the complainants at regular intervals.  On 3.7.2014, the vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.2, for routine service. The regular service was done and invoice dated 4.7.2014, claiming an amount of Rs.74,460/-, was issued. It is stated that after taking delivery of the vehicle from Opposite Party No.2, it was found that the same was not running smoothly, as it was running prior to its service.

         It is averred that on 5.7.2014 the complainants were on way to Mansa Devi Temple along with family members when all of a sudden the vehicle stopped in between the road and did not start. The display started giving the indication of gearbox. The complainant immediately called Opposite Party No.1, which did not give proper assistance. It is further stated that complainant No.2, arranged a crane, and towed the vehicle to the dealer at Chandigarh. It is further stated that the family of the complainants suffered a great mental tension and harassment as the vehicle broke down all of a sudden in between the road. It is submitted that thereafter the vehicle was towed to Opposite Party No.1&2. On 7.7.2014 Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 informed the complainants about an estimate of Rs.6,34,199.10/-, towards the repair cost and told to issue the final estimate after opening the engine and proper diagnosis of the problem in the vehicle. The complainants were shocked to hear that due to adulterated fuel, the fuel line and engine parts got damaged, which needed replacement. The complainants informed that the vehicle was never got refueled after the service, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to their such assertions. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No.2 also assured that it will inform the Insurance Company after proper diagnosis of the problem and preparation of final estimate towards the repairs.

         On 14.7.2014, the Opposite Parties issued an estimate dated 7.7.2014, in the sum of Rs.7,13,523.76/- towards the repairs. It is further submitted that on getting the final estimate towards the repairs, the complainants confirmed about informing Opposite Party No.3, but Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 refused about informing Opposite Party No.3. The complainant himself informed the Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3. An official of Opposite Party No.3 visited the workshop and inspected the vehicle and got the claim form filled up from complainant No.2. The complainants wrote a number of emails to the Opposite Parties asking about the status of the vehicle, but to no avail. It is further submitted that the complainants took delivery of the vehicle under protest after paying a sum of Rs.3,95,190/-.

         It is pleaded that Opposite Parties No.1&2 sent an email dated 20.8.2014 to the complainants wherein they agreed to refund the total cost of parts except the labour cost and consumables. The total cost of parts excluding the consumables and repair was Rs.2,75,000/- approximately. It is also pleaded that Opposite Party No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainants by taking false stand that information with regard to the incident had been given after delay and that the vehicle was dismantled and reassembled.  It is further pleaded that the vehicle was never dismantled prior to the survey. It is stated that even warranty of the parts replaced was not issued by Opposite Party No.1&2. It is also stated that the amount which was paid by the complainants to the tune of Rs.3,95,190/- was not refunded by the Opposite Parties.   Alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed the reply and admitted the sale and service of the vehicle. It is stated that the vehicle in question has been purchased by one Harmony Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.  It is also stated that the complainant met with an accident causing a severe damage to the said vehicle, which fact has been concealed by the complainants. That the complainant himself admitted that the said vehicle was used by them in a trouble free way for a period of more than four years from the date of its purchase, which establishes roadworthiness of the said vehicle. It is further stated that Opposite Party NO.1 has no personal knowledge about the happening of events on 5.7.2014 and hence, the said contents are denied for want of knowledge. It is denied that Opposite Party No.1 gave any kind of repair estimate to the complainants.  It is submitted that insurance contract is an independent contract and Opposite Party NO.1 plays no role either in executing the insurance contract or in carrying out any activities, such as establishing correspondence with the insurance provider or getting the survey conducted. It is pleaded that the vehicle was appropriately repaired by the said dealership, as per the Audi Standards and even a heavy discount purely as a goodwill gesture was provided to the complainant, but inspite of this the complainants took the delivery of the said vehicle under protest for the reasons best known to them.  Further, the expert report as claimed by the complainants cannot be treated to be authentic as the expert has neither tested the fuel in the said vehicle nor did he conduct any physical inspection of the said vehicle, hence the contents of said expert report are denied.  That the claims of the complainants that the adulterated fuel cannot cause damage to the engine of the vehicle, are baseless and without any merit, hence denied.  It is also pleaded that the vehicle is 5 years old and out of warranty.  That the amounts offered as a goodwill were purely offered by the said dealership and the same not be interpreted any acceptance of deficiency.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2 has filed the reply and took objection that the complainants are not consumer and they have concealed material facts.  It is stated that Opposite Party No.2 has sold the vehicle in question to M/s Harmony Colonizer Private Limited, SCO 411, 1^st Floor, Sector 20, Panchkula, a Private Limited Company and Opposite Party NO.2 has also delivered all the necessary documents along with the vehicle.  It is also stated that the complainants have intentionally and deliberately suppressed Sales Contract, Invoice and Delivery Note and Gate Pass issued by Opposite Party No.2 with the present complaint in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is further stated that complainants have falsely stated that the vehicle in question is being used by complainant NO.1 claiming to be Director of the said Company and further falsely claiming for use of complainant No.2 being son in law of complainant No.1, without any proof of his directorship or proof of their identity or proof of usage with approval.  It is submitted that the complainant company is using the said vehicle for its business purposes, hence complainants are not consumer.

         It is asserted that after sale of the car on 24.3.2010, the car reported to workshop of Opposite Party No.2 for fourth routine service on 3.7.2014 after 3 satisfactory services on 1.4.2011, 12.4.2012 and 3.5.2013 after having clocked 18,740 kms.  The car was delivered back to the company on 4.7.2014 to its complete satisfaction along with invoice dated 4.7.2014 which has been duly received and signed by the representative of the company along with Satisfaction Note certifying the satisfaction with work done (Ex.R-2/6 colly.).  It is also asserted that the car was fully checked and serviced, as per the prescribed maintenance list (Ex.R-2/8). As per parts requisition Memo dated 3.7.2014, 8.2 liter engine oil has been requisitioned and put in the car and the same is also reflected in the invoice dated 4.7.2014 (Ex.R-2/9).  Further, the Scanning/Log Report of the vehicle also clearly demonstrates that after filling the Engine Oil, the Oil Check Inspection has been re-set by the Sensor/Computer to the next 15000 KM/365 days which clearly established that the Engine Oil has been filled in the car as per the Standard Maintenance List and has been showed in the Log as successfully re-set.  It is pleaded that had the engine oil not been filled in the car, as falsely alleged in the complaint, the computerized scan/log of the car would not have shown as successfully re-set and moreover, “Engine Level Low” light would have appeared in the cluster meter, thus the allegations of the complainants that the engine oil was not filled at the time of service of the car is false and the report of the Chartered Engineer is also false and baseless.  Further, the alleged report of the Chartered Engineer is without even checking the vehicle or its records with the Opposite Party NO.2 and has been prepared on the basis of presumptions and assumption and is totally irrelevant and appears to be a procured report (Ex.R-2/10).

         It is pleaded that on 5.7.2014, in the very late hours, it was reported that the car is not starting, on which the representative of the company was advised not to crank the car repeatedly and brought it to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2. After that the car was reported to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 on 7.7.2014, a repair order for checking the problem in the car was prepared. That after initial checking and diagnosis of the car, it was found that the fuel line of the vehicle has been damaged due to use of contaminated fuel over a period of time which resulted into damage to the fuel line and injectors and other parts and the customer was informed accordingly and preliminary estimate of Rs.7,13,523.76 was prepared   (Annexure C-9). Further, upon receiving the consent of the customer, Opposite Party No.2 further diagnosed the vehicle and it was found that the Cam Shafts had also been damaged due to repeated/excessive cranking of the vehicle by the driver when it had stopped. Thus, a revised estimate was prepared including the costs of other parts (Ann.C-11).  It is pleaded that the vehicle at the time of said damage was out of warranty period.  However, the Opposite Party No.2, as a goodwill gesture, offered 50% discount on parts as per the estimate excluding labour charges to which the complainants agreed.  It is pleaded that vide e-mail dated 19.7.2014   (Ann.C-17), the representative of the complainant company firmed that he shall share the 50% of the cost of repair under protest in case the insurance company repudiates its claim and requested to repair the vehicle.  Accordingly, the customer deposited Rs.1.00 lakh as advance to carry out the repair work.  After the necessary repairs, the vehicle was delivered to the representative of the complainant company vide invoice dated 5.8.2014 wherein labour charges were charged to the extent of Rs.1,30,652.50 and Rs.2,64,537.67 was charged towards the cost of the parts.  It is denied that the damage to the vehicle had occurred on account of any manufacturing defect. Further, the complainant was informed that it has no connection whatsoever with the insurance claim and it has already reduced the costs of the parts by more than 50% and that the reduced amount has already been paid and vehicle has been taken after repairs. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.3 (HDFC Ergo) also field reply and admitted the insurance of the vehicle in question.  It is stated that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes, hence complainants are not consumers.  It is also stated that on 15.7.2014, the answering Opposite Party received intimation regarding the alleged loss caused to the vehicle of the complainant and the complainant was allotted claim and Mr.Dheeraj Singla, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss.  It is submitted that the Surveyor, after inspection of the vehicle and doing different investigations, came to know that the internal parts of engine got damaged due to adulterated fuel being used by the complainants regularly for the last few months and there was no manufacturing defect.  It is also pleaded that the intimation about the loss to the vehicle was intimated late, hence there is clear cut violation of terms & conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that the complainant claim the amount of Rs.3,95,190/- being the repair charges, but the same was denied vide e-mail dated 06.08.2014 (Ann.C-30) followed by repudiation letter dated 8.9.2014 as per terms & conditions of the policy, therefore, no claim is payable under the policy. Pleading no deficiency in service and denied other allegations of the complainants, Opposite Party NO.3 has prayed for dismissed of the complaint qua it.

         Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainants thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties as made in their written statements.

        

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       The complainants have preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the ground that they are the owners of the vehicle in question, registered in the name of Firm – Harmony Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and have been using the same for personal use, the complainant NO.1 being the Director and Complainant No.2 being son-in-law of complainant No.1-Director. The said vehicle was purchased in the year 2010 and since then the same was being regularly serviced by Opposite Party No.2 and on the fateful day of 5.7.2014, the said vehicle while on its way to Mata Mansa Devi Temple, suddenly broke-down & stopped and an intimation was sent to Opposite Party No.2, who towed this vehicle to its workshop and made an estimate of nearly Rs.7.00 lakh for the repair of the vehicle, claiming that the damage to the engine has been caused because of use of contaminated fuel.  The complainant even intimated the insurance company – Opposite Party NO.3 about the loss to the vehicle after an opinion was expressed by Opposite Party No.2 that the loss to the engine had also occurred due to cranking of engine by the driver when it had stopped midway while being driven on the fateful day of 5.7.2014. 

        

6]       The complainants claim that the observations of Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the damage to the engine and other parts is not on account of use of contaminated fuel as alleged by Opposite Party NO.2, whereas, it was on account to non-toping up of the engine oil in the engine of the vehicle when the same was taken for service a day prior to the happening on 4.7.2014.  The complainant has placed on record the copy of bill raised on 4.7.2014, which clearly shows that the vehicle was in the premises of Opposite Party No.2 for a regular paid service on 4.7.2014 and after such repairs, a bill of Rs.74,460/- was raised, which was duly paid by the complainant while taking delivery of the vehicle. Interestingly the vehicle had travelled only 29 kilometers after the regular paid service on 4.7.2014, when it abruptly broke-down and stopped. The complainant on his part has claimed that the Opposite Party No.2 did not take due care while servicing the vehicle on 4.7.2014 and due to such lack of care, omitted topping up the vehicle with engine oil and as the vehicle kept on running dry, resulting into the damage, which Opposite Party NO.2 has alleged to be on account of use of contaminated fuel. 

 

7]       The complainants have thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and have sought the relief quoted in their prayer clause. 

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and while filing its reply has contested that the vehicle in question was out of warranty period, which was only for the period of two years from the date of sale of the vehicle and furthermore, the acts of omission and commission on the part of Opposite Party No.2 are to be answered by it alone and no blame can be placed at the doorstep of Opposite Party No.1 for such acts of Opposite Party No.2. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party No.2 while contesting the claim of the complainants has alleged that the damage to the vehicle was caused on account of prolonged use of contaminated fuel, which had caused damage to the fuel parts and fuel lining of the vehicle and therefore, such damages were not covered under the warranty terms & conditions of the vehicle.  Furthermore, the damage to the crank of the engine, which the complainants have alleged on account of non-topping of engine oil by Opposite Party No.2, is in its opinion, is on account of cranking of engine by the driver of the vehicle, when it had stopped dead during its drive on the fateful day of 5.7.2014.  The Opposite Party No.2 has claimed that such damages are part and parcel of normal wear and tear of any engine and the same are not covered under any warranty terms & conditions.  Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua it. 

        

10]      The Opposite Party No.3, which had repudiated the claim of the complainant with regard to its claim of reimbursement of its loss, has held its ground that the complainants had intimated the insurance company belatedly and therefore, it had lost an opportunity to inspect the vehicle after the damage and the claim that had been lodged, was after the vehicle had been repaired, thus, the insurance company had lost the opportunity to seek an expert opinion with regard to the type and quantum of loss from a certified Surveyor/Loss Assessor. In these terms, the complainants were themselves at wrong and had violated the condition NO.1, which is reproduced in the repudiation letter itself.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on its part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

11]      We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the vehicle in question suffered two different damages against which the detail of replaced spare parts indicate that the crank shaft of the engine of the vehicle had got damaged, whereas on the other hand the fuel pump, fuel lining and fuel injectors had got damaged.  The Opposite Party NO.2 had generated three different estimates of even date i.e. 7.7.2014, 14.7.2014 & 15.7.2014, wherein in the first estimate there is only opinion with regard to the battery condition, when the vehicle was not starting.  The estimate amounting to Rs.5,89,479/- without any reasoning with regard to damage to either fuel system or the engine.  Further, there was no mention of the damage to the crank shaft of the engine in the second estimate (Ann.C-9), whereas the same is found mentioned in third estimate dated 15.7.2014 (Ann.C-11) and for such reason, the estimated value of repair has been assessed at Rs.7,13,523/- and Rs.9,05,343/- respectively.  In these set of circumstances, when Opposite Party No.2 had opined in the first instance that the damage to the fuel pump, fuel lining and fuel injectors was on account of prolonged use of contaminated fuel, no plausible reason has been attributed with regard to the damage to the crank shaft of the engine.  Though, a flimsy reasoning with regard to cranking of the engine, by the driver of the vehicle in question, is claimed to be the cause of damage to the crank shafts.  It is necessary to mention here that a crank shaft of an engine would only get damaged when there is some obstruction in the engine either on account of ingress of liquid in the engine head, any mechanical part causing such hindrance or if the engine continuous to run without lubrication causing the metal parts to expand and thus get damaged.  Resultantly, such reasons would usually amount to damage to the crank shaft or other engine parts, when it is made to start by cranking of the engine either by the starter motor or by other means. There is no explanation to this effect from the side of Opposite Party No.2, who alone could opine once it had dismantled the engine while replacing the damaged crank shafts. 

 

12]      It is also necessary to mention here that Opposite Party No.2, which has given a plausible reasoning about the damage to the fuel pump, fuel lining and fuel injectors of the vehicle, has nowhere displayed or demonstrated that this is a common problem faced by its vehicles in this part of the region and such damages are common, even though the vehicle in question had only travelled 17000 odd kilometers in the past Four Years, which boils down to only approximately 10 kilometers per day in entire life of four years, meaning thereby, that no colossal amount of fuel had travelled through its fuel system i.e. fuel pump, fuel lining and fuel injectors.  In these set of circumstances, when there is no evidence with regard to sale of contaminated fuel in the open market or the type of vehicles sold/serviced by Opposite Party NO.2, suffering this problem on regular basis, it is difficult for us to believe that in what set of circumstances, only the vehicle of the complainant could suffer such a damage when it was being regularly serviced by authorised service centre of Opposite Party No.1 only.  Though we understand that the vehicle in question had outlived its warranty period only on account of the time period that had lapsed since its date of sale, but as far as the running of the vehicle is concerned, we are convinced from the kilometers travelled by it, till date i.e. approximately 18000 kms., the vehicle is being sparingly used by the complainants. 

 

13]      The second cause of action with regard to the damage to the crank shaft of the engine, the reasoning given by Opposite Party No.2 does not sustain for the reason that after dismantling of the engine, the same has not been corroborated by giving any evidence in the shape of opinion of its Service Engineers either by mentioning the same in the Job Card or by demonstrating the same to the complainants, when the engine had been dismantled before it was repaired.  It is necessary to mention here that the claim of the complainant with regard to non-topping up of the engine oil by Opposite Party NO.2 when the same was serviced by it on 4.7.2014, deserves to be corroborated from the Diagnostic Protocol (Annexure R-2/10, dated 03.07.2014) details placed on record by Opposite Party NO.2.  It is apparent from this Report as well as Ann.C-2, which is the Repair Order Job Card, generated on 3.7.2014 when the vehicle was taken in for regular service as 10.30 AM.  The Diagnostic Report carried time as 13.06 meaning thereby that the vehicle, which was delivered to the complainant on 4.7.2014, was subjected to such diagnostic test only once i.e. as per the time shown with regard to the delivery of the vehicle at the foot-note Ann.C-2, the vehicle was to be delivered at 6.00 PM on 3.7.2014 itself.  However, the vehicle was delivered on 4.7.2014 and in the absence of a subsequent report, which could explain that the vehicle in question was diagnosed before the regular service as well as after regular service, remains a suspense.

 

14]      It is also necessary to mention here that the Opposite Party No.2 did not subject the vehicle in question to any Diagnostic Process, when the same was presented before it, after towing it with the help of Crane to its premises on 5.7.2014.  Had it taken such necessary step to ascertain as to what ailed the vehicle in question for the reason that Opposite Party No.2 was groping in the dark, when initially it opined about the problem of Battery as per Ann.C-10 and thereafter, it went on to give different reasons like damage to fuel linings and finally adding the damage to the crank shaft of the engine, while expanding the repair estimates from Rs.5.00 lacs to Rs.9.00 lacs plus.  Had there been even a single such Diagnostic Report, generated on the second visit of the vehicle, after it had left its premises on 4.7.2014, the allegations of the complainants with regard to non-topping up of the vehicle with the engine oil, would have been easily falsified.  In the absence of any such report and without contributing any cogent reasoning and evidence about the damage to the crank shafts, the allegations of the complainants hold ground with regard to non-topping up of the engine with the engine oil by Opposite Party No.2 on 4.7.2014.

 

15]      It would not be out of place to mention here that the complainants did seek opinion about the damage to the engine from an expert and the report placed on record by the complainants to this effect has been objected too by the Opposite Party NO.2 on different grounds and also on the ground that such an expert opinion does not carry any force for the reason that he had not inspected the vehicle either before the repairs or at any point of time, when it was brought to its premises for repair and thereafter, left its premises in good perfect running condition. 

 

16]      Though we understand that the details of this expert opinion have not been used in any manner to decide the issue about the engine having run in a starved condition in the lack of any lubricant, when Opposite Party NO.2 failed to top-up the engine with engine oil, when it was serviced on 4.7.2014, but Opposite Party NO.2 has itself proved the important aspect of the Expert Report with regard to the event of electronically diagnosing the problem of the vehicle in question, when the same is brought to its premises and when it had placed on record only one single report indicates that Opposite Party No.2 was either in possession of such reports, which it did not bring on record, as they may have proved the allegations of the complainants right or Opposite Party NO.2 was casual enough to give three different versions about the damage to the vehicle on 7.7.2014 firstly opining about the problem in the battery, secondly damage to the fuel pump, fuel lining and fuel injectors on account of contaminated fuel, and thirdly about the loss to the crank shaft of the engine, lying the blame on the driver of the vehicle about cranking of the engine when it had stopped in the middle of the road on 5.7.2014, after having travelled only 29 kilometers, when it had left its premises on 4.7.2014.

        

17]      In these set of circumstances, Opposite Party NO.2 has miserably failed to defend itself with regard to the allegations of the complainants of having skipped the topping up of the engine of the vehicle in question with engine oil, while it was serviced on 4.7.2014.  Thus causing extensive damage to the engine of the vehicle, resulting into a huge repair bill amounting to Rs.9.00 lacs.

 

18]      The Opposite Party No.2 while arguing the matter has even gone to the extent of claiming that it was magnanimous enough that it only charged sum odd of Rs.3,95,190/-, which the complainants had paid under protest for the reason that the insurance company had washed its hands of from the claim lodged with it.  We have minutely gone through the details of the invoice details which amounts to Rs.9.00 lacs (Ann.C-11 Colly.). The break-up of all the three conditions with regard to Battery, Engine and fuel pump and lining, boils down to Rs.21,712/-, Rs.6.5 lacs with regard to Labour & Spares of the Fuel Pump and nearly Rs.2.5 lacs with regard to  replacement of Crank Shafts of the engine including its Labour. Opposite Party NO.2 preferred to charge Rs.75,137/- on account of replacement of fuel pump, whereas it has charged Rs.3,55,685/- for replacement of Six Fuel Injectors, which is too exorbitant as compared to the value of the fuel pump, which is in itself a compact mechanical machine responsible for accurate distribution of fuel in all the different fuel injectors. The Opposite Party No.2 finally charged Rs.1,16,906/- for these fuel injectors finally when the bill was paid on 5^th August, 2014. We understand that the complainants have not gone into these details being ignorant of these facts, but it does not behoove Opposite Party No.2 which is the dealer of a Renowned Multinational Brand to charge its unsuspecting customers in such manner.  As this aspect was not raised by the complainants, so it would not be in the interest of justice, that we give our opinion about it, beyond this point. 

 

19]      The Opposite Party No.3, which is the Insurance Company, which had comprehensively insured the vehicle in question and had repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that it was not intimated well in time about the loss to the engine and the claim of the complainants was not maintainable for the reason that the allegations in the complaint were solely directed against Opposite Party No.2, therefore, we prefer to dismiss the present complaint qua Opposite Party NO.3 as well as Opposite Party NO.1 for the reason that it had in no manner contributed to the loss to the complainants, as the event of non-topping up of the engine with engine oil on 4.7.2014, had happened at the premises of Opposite Party No.2 and for which, it alone was responsible.  Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1 also. 

 

20]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 had failed in its responsibility of conducting a thorough professional service to the vehicle in question by omitting to top-up the engine with engine oil, which resulted into heavy damage to the engine.  This act of the Opposite Party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Furthermore, the vehicle being registered in the name of Firm, no compensation can be granted on account of mental agony and harassment, though deserves to be adequately compensated for deficiency in service alone. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.1 & 3. The Opposite party No.2 is directed as under:-

 

[a] To refund an amount of Rs.3,95,190/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 5.8.2014 till its realization;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as consolidated amount of compensation on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum, on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] from the date of payment i.e. 5.8.2014 till its realization and also on the amount as mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

18^th January, 2016                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

        Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

        Sd/-

 

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.447 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 18th day of January, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against  Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1 & 3.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member