DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 417 of 29.9.2016
Decided on: 14.5.2018
Ashok Kumar Premi S/o Late S.Desh Raj R/o H.No.2414, Rajpura Town, Tehsil Rajpura,District Patiala (PB).
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Cheverlet General Motors (1) PVT Ltd.. Chandpura Industrial Estate, HALOL-389351, District Panchkulas (Gujrat).
- Padam Cars (P) Ltd., Rajpura, Patiala Road, Near Bahadurgarh, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.O.P.Arora,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.K.S.Sidhu,Advocate, counsel for Op No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Ashok Kumar Premi, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.)
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the month of March 2016, he purchased the vehicle CHEVROLET DIESEL(Beat) bearing registration No.PB-11-BB-4527, from Shanti Devi w/o Sh.Satish Kumar R/o House No.44, Dashmesh Colony, Rajpura Town,Tehsil Rajpura,District Patiala. The complainant deposited Rs.250/- as warranty fee and certificate in his favour was issued for the period from 30.7.2015 to 30.7.2017.It is stated that OP No.2 received Rs.4456/- as spare part charges vide bill No.000567 dated 20.4.2016 and Rs.1144/- as labour charges for service of vehicle in question. It is further stated that on 13.7.2016, complainant visited OP no.2 for service of the vehicle i.e. for fuel problem, average problem and consuming very excess engine oil. The vehicle was handed over to the company against the slip dated 13.7.2016 for repair, wherein amount for the repair has been shown as nil. On 19.7.2016, he visited the company for taking the delivery of the repaired vehicle. However, the OP demanded Rs.1495/- as service charges vide bill No. 002093 and Rs.18,903/- for spare parts vide bill No.002092 both dated 19.7.2016, illegally. The complainant got served legal notice dated 29.7.2016upon the OPs for the replacement of the vehicle and also the amount paid by him for repair alongwith interest @24% per annum but to no effect for which the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to repair the technical fault which still exists and refund the amount of Rs.18,903/- charged by the OPs alongwith interest; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed their separate written versions.
In the written version filed by OP No.1, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer ; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder/mis joinder of necessary party and that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP no.1.On merits, it is admitted that Smt.Shanti Devi wife of Sh.Satish Kumar was the first owner of the vehicle in question.It is stated that no extended warranty was given by OP no.1 rather the same was given by M/s Corporate Warranties as the amount of Rs.250/- was deposited by the complainant with it, for the said purpose .The manufacturer warranty, which was for three years or one lacs kilometers had already been crossed on 13.7.2015, as the vehicle in question was actually sold to its first owner on 13.7.2012.It is further stated that the vehicle in question had an accidental damage from the below, due to which the oil pump got leaked and the engine of the said vehicle could not get sufficient quantity of oil, resultantly, the turbocharger got defected. The vehicle had been got repaired from OP no.2 and being a manufacturer, OP no.1 is not responsible for the same, as no penny for the said purpose was received from the complainant. It is stated that it sells all its products to its sister concern i.e. M/s Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., who thereafter, used to sell the same in the bulk of 20-25 cars to OP no.2 and thereafter OP no.2 is used to sell the same in retail. OPs No.1&2 is separate legal entity, all works are done on principal to principal basis. The complainant neither approached OP no.1for his grievance nor wrote any letter in this regard to it. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP no.1. After denouncing all other allegations going against it, prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
In the written version filed by OP No.2, preliminary objections have been taken that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain , try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that no cause of action has been arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against OP no.2 and is liable to dismissed. On merits, it is stated that damage to the vehicle caused by the negligence act of the complainant himself, which is not covered under the extended warranty and the complainant was liable to pay for the repair of the same. It is further stated that in the month of May,2016, the complainant had brought the vehicle in question and the clutch actuator cylinder replacement was done vide bill dated 3.5.2016. Only Rs.600/- was charged on account of change of engine oil. On 13.7.2016, the complainant again visited OP no.2 with the complaint of fuel problem, average problem and consuming very excess engine oil. On inspection, it was found that the Pan Assembly oil (i.e. the base chamber of the engine oil of vehicle) was damaged, which was resulted into effecting of Turbocharger of the same. As such the said parts were not covered under the extended warranty because of damage of these parts by the act of the complainant.The amount of Rs.18903/- has been rightly charged from the complainant.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP no.1. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
The Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Nitish Chug, Regional After Sales Manager, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence of OP no.1.
The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB, affidavit of Sh.Gaganpreet Singh Brar, alongwith documents Exs.OP5 to OP12 and closed the evidence of OP No.5
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant purchased the car in question from Smt.Shanti Devi, in the month of May,2016. Said Smt.Shanti Devi had taken the extended warranty of the car in question and subsequently on 20.4.2016, she transferred the same in the name of the complainant. It is submitted that on 20.4.2016, he had taken the car in question for its service to the OP No.2. From the bill dated 20.4.2016, it is evident that it had charged only labour charges of Rs.1145/-. Thereafter, on 13.7.2016, he again took his car for repair to OP no.2, it did not charge anything as the car was under extended warranty. However, on 19.7.2016 the complainant took his car to OP no.2 for its repair who charged Rs.18903/-for the said repair, inspite of the fact that the car in question was under extended warranty. The OPs by not repairing the car, free of cost, the same being under extended warranty, have committed deficiency in service.
The ld. counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that the extended warranty was not given by it. Therefore, it is not liable to refund the repair charges to the complainant.
The ld. counsel for Op no.2 has submitted that the car got an external damage from the bottom due to which oil pump got leaked and the engine of the vehicle could not get the lubrication properly, which resulted damage of turbocharger. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the extended warranty.
7. The allegation of the OPs is that turbocharger of the car in question was got defected due to some external damage. However, no such document has been placed on record by the OPs, to prove this fact. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence the said allegation of the OPs is not sustainable. It may be stated here that from the extended warranty, document Ex.OP2, it is evident that the extended warranty has been given by the manufacturer only. Therefore, the contention of the OP no.1 that manufacture never gives extended warranty gets falsified. In the extended warranty document, it is mentioned that, if any defect(s) occurred in the vehicle during the period for which extended warranty was provided, the defective part(s) shall be replaced or repaired free of cost but the OP No.2 had charged Rs.18903/- as is evident from the retail invoice dated 19.7.2016.Ex.OP9 and OP10. Since the car in question got defective, during the period of extended warranty, therefore, the OP No.1 being manufacturer and OP no.2 being the service centre, were liable to remove the defect(s) either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost. By not doing so, they have committed deficiency in service on their part and are liable to refund the amount of Rs.18903/- paid for the repair of the car in question, the same was being under extended warranty. Not only this, they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs No.1&2 jointly and severally in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.18903/-, charged from the complainant, for the repair of the car,
- To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment;
- To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation expenses.
The OPs are further directed to comply the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:-14.5.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
