BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.177 of 2016
Date of Instt. 18.04.2016
Date of Decision: 24.10.2017
Bably aged 31 years wife of Sh. Baljit Singh Sohal, resident of 19/91, Amba Bhawan, Railway Road, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bhagat Ford, A.B. Motors Pvt.Ltd., 658, Industrial Area-A, Sherpur Byepass, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Proprietor.
2. A.B. Motors Pvt. Limited, Opp. Delhi Public School, Jalandhar- Phagwara Road, Jalandhar through its Manager.
3. Manufacturers Ford Vehicles, Head Office, if any (to be disclosed by opp. Parties No.1 and 2)
..….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. VK Singla, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 not summoned for want of address.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased the vehicle Ford Eco Sport on 30.11.2015, which was manufactured in the month and year on 13.11.2015 and the provisional registration certificate was issued by the OP No.2 valid from 02.12.2015 to 02.01.2016. The said vehicle was having chasis No.MAJAXXMRKAFM26230 and Engine No.FM26230 and provisional registration mark PB-07-AY-6152 was allotted to the said vehicle and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant, after getting the price of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was also hypothecated to Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., Jalandhar. Hence, there exists the relationship of the consumer in between the complainant and OPs.
2. That from the very first day, there was problem in the said vehicle, the check engine light was depicting in the engine meter and when the speed cross over 80, the pickup was low. The said problem was informed to the OPs and they assured that the said problem will be solved automatically after 2500 km i.e. after first general checkup. At the time of getting accessory of the vehicle from the OPs, within first week of purchase of the vehicle, the said problem was informed to the OPs, then they again assured the complainant that the said problem will be solved after completion of 2500 km and it was because change of oil, which will be solved after first service.
3. That after consumption of 2500 km, when the complainant again visited the service centre of OPs on 02.02.2016, the said problems were again existing and the same was informed to the OPs. The technicians of OPs told the complainant to leave the vehicle for one day in the agency to solve the said problem. The complainant agreed to do so. The said vehicle remained in the custody of OPs for 4-5 days and returned the same to the complainant on 08.02.2016. The repair order is attached herewith for the ready reference. Again, the said problems were existing in the vehicle and the same was again informed to the OPs, then on 19.02.2016, the vehicle was again sent to service centre of the OPs and the problems like check engine light coming and pick up low was written in repair order dated 19.02.2016. The said repair order is also attached with the file. That earlier on 18.02.2016, a technician came to Hoshiarpur and checked the vehicle at Hoshiarpur to solve the problems, complained by complainant and the complete wiring was changed as was earlier changed, but on the same day on test drive, the said problems were existing and they took the vehicle to carve out the said problems to Jalandhar. On 19.02.2016, the complainant again visited to agency at Jalandhar and a meeting with DGM was arranged at Jalandhar and he told the complainant to wait for one hour and within one hour, the said problems will be sorted out. But again on test drive, the same problems were existing and again from 19.02.2016 to 29.02.2016, vehicle of the complainant was held by the OPs. On 29.02.2016, the mail regarding the completion of work of vehicle was informed and it was also informed that the turbo of the vehicle their demand, but they used 500KM and they made the scratches on driver seat, which are visible now. Hence, there is a deficiency in service of OPs.
4. That on 7th March, 2016, the said vehicle was to be taken by the complainant, the complainant asked the DGM and other persons of the OPs that in case the said problems are existing, then she will not accept the old vehicle, new vehicle would be supplied to her. Upon this, the DGM and other persons misbehaved with the complainant and used the abusive language against the complainant and threatened the complainant that in case, she will visit in the office of OPs, then she will suffer dire consequences. The complainant suffered very much ashamed and humiliated by the said act of the OPs. The spark of money has blind folded the eyes of OPs and the OPs delivered the defective vehicle to the complainant despite taking full price. Further, the complainant had to visit the workshop of the OPs due to the problem in the vehicle as mentioned above, which is a manufacturing defect, as such, the OPs should have replaced the vehicle, but instead, the OPs made the complainant to run from pillar to post and they failed to redress the grievances of the complainant and remained gross negligent in performing their duties towards the complainant and the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice as apparent from the above said facts and further, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and humiliation at the hands of the OPs besides financial loss and the complainant estimated the damages minimum to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant and as such, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with new one and in the alternative the OPs be directed to take the vehicle back and refund an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs of present litigation and also pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for humiliation, mental tension and harassment.
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but OP No.3 could not be summoned for want of address, whereas OP No.1 and 2 summoned and both of them appeared through their counsel and filed a written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the present complaint is not legally maintainable and further alleged that the complaint is false and frivolous just to harass and defame the OPs. The basic motive of the OP is to extract money by using undue influence on the OPs. The complainant has concealed material facts from the Forum and further submitted that the real facts are that after sale on 30.11.2015, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant by the replying OPs in perfect condition after being inspected by the service engineers of the OP No.1 and 2. In this regard, on 30.11.2015, a test drive of the said car by the complainant was also opted. After sale and delivery of the vehicle, there was no complaint on the part of the complainant till 02.02.2016, when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.1 and 2 for some accessories. It was only on 02.02.2016 that the complainant for the first time complained that in the front panel of dashboard, engine light was glowing in the cluster. The vehicle was inspected and examined by the competent service engineers and mechanics and after test drive, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant to her satisfaction. The complainant was advised not to accelerate more on lower gears and vehicle was delivered on 08.02.2016 to the complainant. Thereafter, once again, on 18.02.2016, the complainant again complained that the same problem of the engine light glowing in the cluster and low pick up was being faced by the complainant about the vehicle. The experts and service engineers visited at Hoshiarpur at the location of vehicle, tried to fix the problem, but due to non availability of proper instruments at Hoshiarpur, the vehicle was brought to Jalandhar at the workshop of OP No.1 and 2. Meanwhile, having regarding of being esteemed customer and for convenience, the complainant was provided with a standby Loaner Car “Eco Sport” by the OPs. Further, at the workshop, the OP no.1 and 2 remained in touch with OP No.3, the manufacturer of the car and with the support of OP No.3, instead of repairing EVRV HOSE of Turbo Charger, the entire Turbo Charger free of cost was replaced by the OPs being covered under warranty. Some of mails among OPs inter-se are attached and detailed vehicle history is also attached as Annexure R-3. After that, the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1 and 2, but the complainant refused to accept the vehicle and also refused to return the standby loaner car Ford Ecosport to the OP No.1 and 2 causing a lot of stress and harassment to the OP No.1 and 2. It was only at the request of the complainant that a long test drive of the vehicle was being taken to satisfy the complainant about the fitness of the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after lot of requests and persuasion since the complainant was adamant that the OP No.1 and 2 must give guarantee of replacement with new vehicle, which was never condition precedent to sale of vehicle. There were no scratches on the driver seat as alleged and further submitted that there is neither any deficiency, negligence in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complaints of the complainant were timely addressed and were sorted out with appropriate solutions and for the convenience of the complainant, a loaner standby Ford Ecosport car was immediately provided to the complainant and instead of repairing the EVRV HOSE of Turbo Charger, the entire Turbo Charger free of cost was replaced by the OPs. Further, none of the official or employee of the OPs ever misbehaved with the complainant as alleged in the complaint and further averred that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased a car in question and it is also admitted that the complainant made a complaint in regard to some problem in the car and accordingly, car was brought to the workshop of the OPs but the remaining allegations as made by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and supplementary affidavit of the complainant Ex.CB alongwith some other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and then closed the evidence.
7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW/1 alongwith some documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. As per version of the complainant, he purchased a Car Ford Eco Sport on 30.11.2015 from OP No.1 and 2 and the provisional registration number was provided to the complainant by the OP i.e. PB-07-AY-6152 and the whole price of the vehicle was paid Rs.10,00,000/-, out of which some was arranged by the complainant by way of loan after hypothecating the vehicle in question but thereafter, the complainant find that there is a manufacturing defect in the car because the engine light was depicting in the engine meter and when the speed cross over 80, the pickup was low and accordingly, the said problem was informed to the OP, who gave the assurance that the said problem will be automatically solved, when the vehicle runs about 2500 KM, but the said problem was not solved, even after consumption of 2500 KM and accordingly, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the OP on 02.02.2016, where it remains for 4-5 days i.e. up to 08.02.2016, but even thereafter, the said problem was not solved and again on 18.02.2016, the technician of the OP came to Hoshiarpur to solve the problem but they could not solve the problem there and carrying the vehicle at workshop Jalandhar, then complainant again visited the agency at Jalandhar on 19.02.2016, where vehicle remained till 29.02.2016, but the problem was not solved and accordingly, the complainant informed the OP that the vehicle is still having same problem and as such, the OP has delivered the defective vehicle to the complainant, despite taken full price and as such, there is a unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and whereby the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment and humiliation.
10. The case of the complainant meet out by the OP, simply stating that the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 30.11.2015, after being inspected by the service engineer as well as a test drive of the said car was also taken by the complainant and after delivery i.e. on 30.11.2015 till 02.02.2016, there was no problem in the vehicle and first time on 02.02.2016, the complainant reported the said problem and the complainant was asked not to accelerate more on lower gears and then vehicle was handed over to the complainant on his satisfaction i.e. on 08.02.2016, then again the vehicle was checked by the OP on 18.02.2016 and proper service was provided to the complainant and even service history of the vehicle is produced on the file Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 and the plea taken by the OP is corroborated by Jasbir Singh, who tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OPW/1.
11. We have considered the respective plea of both the parties and find that the OP alleging that they have checked the vehicle and find there was no defect as alleged by the complainant i.e. engine light was glowing in the cluster and when the speed cross over 80, the pickup was low, apparently, these problems have been brought to the notice of the OPs by the complainant and same has been mentioned in the service report dated 19.02.2016, which is Ex.C6. Apart from that, the vehicle was brought by the complainant in the workshop of the OP, vide service report Ex.C1, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. So, it means that the vehicle was brought in the workshop number of times due to the said problem, but the OP could not able to remove the said problem, if remove then it is the duty of the OP to examine any engineer or mechanic, who solved the problem, but for the best known reason, the OP has not examined any engineer/mechanic, who checked the vehicle and solved the problem. So, it is clearly established that the defect, so referred by the complainant could not be rectified by the OPs and as such, the same is a manufacturing defect and therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle.
12. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and OP No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the old vehicle in question with a new one of the same model and same price, after getting back the old vehicle and further OP No.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
24.10.2017 Member President
