Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 212.
Instituted on : 19.07.2013.
Decided on : 13.02.2017.
Santosh Devi wife of Dr. Suresh Nandal, resident of 26, Raj Garden, Opp. I.G.Police office, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Budhwar Cars Pvt. Ltd., Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-1/A, Five Star, Industrial Area, MIDC Shendra Tehsil and Distt. Aurangabad 431201 through its Incharge.
- M/s Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. office at Silver Utopia, 4th floor, A wing Cardinal Gracious road, Chakala, Adheri West, Mumbai, through its Manager/Prop.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.N.K.Singhal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh.M.L.Arora, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a car Jeeta 2.0L CRTDI of make Volkswagon India Pvt. from the opposite party on 3.5.2012 and the registration no. of the car is HR-12T-8008. It is averred that after one month of its purchase there was problem in all the wheels and it was proved that the wheels were defective. Therefore, the complainant made several requests the opposite parties but the wheels have not been replaced and the complainant is facing hardship and the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. It is averred that a legal notice dated 01.05.2013 was also sent to the opposite parties but the reply given by the opposite party was wrong and not satisfactory. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace all the wheels and tyres and also to pay compensation of Rs.100000/- for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the car in question was being driven by a rough driver and it has undergone several accidental repairs as is evident from the service history of the car. The wheels in question had got deformed due to external impacts and there was no manufacturing defect. It is averred that the complainant has got all four wheels replaced on 25.07.2013 against payment after he was satisfied that the alloy wheels were deformed due to external impact. It is averred that complainant has not claimed refund of the amount paid. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is submitted that the car had already clocked mileage of 47619 when the wheels were replaced. It is averred that the wheels/rims were damaged due to external impacts and were replaced on chargeable basis as the warranty only covers manufacturing defects. There was no manufacturing defect in the wheels/rims. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the answering opposite party is not liable to provide any sales, after sales & warranty related service to the customers of VW brand vehicles, this is a liability of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. which is responsible for marketing, sale and servicing of Volkswagen brand vehicles, through its dealers across India appointed on principal to principal basis. Hence the answering opposite party is not a relevant and necessary party to the present complaint.
4. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the damage caused to the said vehicle is clearly attributable to the external factor i.e. accidental damage which is not covered under the purview of warranty policy provided by the opposite party no.3 nor the opposite party no.3 plays any role in the insurance claim and its settlement. It is averred that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and warranty benefits as claimed by the complainant were not applicable to the instances and hence were not provided to the complainant. It is prayed the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R30 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for opposite party no.3 in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A, documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/10 and has closed his evidence.
7. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased the car from the opposite party No.1. It is also not disputed that as per the certain repairs made by the opposite party no.1 through tax invoice Ex.R2 to Ex.R26 all the repairs were done on chargeable basis. As per Tax invoice Ex.R8 dated 22.09.2012, Ex.R10 dated 04.01.201, Ex.R11 dated 02.02.2013, Ex.R14 dated 27.04.2013 there were problems regarding wheel alignment, alloy wheel bend and wheel balancing and as per Ex.R19 all four wheels were replaced on payment by the complainant. As per Ex.R19 all alloy wheel bend but the same were not replaced and the opposite party vide its letter Ex.R29 has submitted that the damages to wheel rims were caused due to various external impact/factors which are beyond the purview of warranty and the same are to be carried out on chargeable basis.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defect in the alloy wheel appeared during warranty period but the same were not replaced by the opposite parties on the ground that that the damages to wheel rims were caused due to various external impact/factors but the same has not been proved on file by the opposite parties. It is also observed that as per document Ex.R26 all the tyrs/alloy rims were replaced and all the other repairs/jobs have been done by the opposite party no.1 but inspite of that that the problem could not be resolved. As the problem of alloy wheel/rim appeared during warranty period hence the opposite parties are liable to remove the defects by replacing the same.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that complainant shall handover the vehicle in question to the opposite parties and in turn opposite parties shall remove the problem of alloy wheels by replacing the alloy wheels of all the tyres at their own costs after taking satisfaction letter from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within 20 days from the date of handing over the vehicle by the complainant with the opposite parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………….
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
