STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 28.12.2017
Date of final hearing: 25.07.2024
Date of pronouncement: 17.09.2024
First Appeal No.1616 of 2017
Yogesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Thakur Dass, R/o 4 Marla Colony, Fatehabad.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Limited, C/o General Motor India Pvt. Limited registered office at Chandrapur Industrial Area, Halol-389351 District Panchmahals, Gujarat (India) through its Principal officer/C.E.O.
2. Ashwani Auto Motors, 9th KM Stone, opposite Jindal Marg, Hisar through its Manager.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited SCO 101, C,UE-11, Near Pushpa Complex, Hisar through its Divisional Manager.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, Adv. for appellant.
Mr. Manish Giri, proxy counsel for Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Adv. for respondent No.1.
Mr. Himanshu Monga, proxy counsel for Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. for respondent No.2.
Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo, Adv. for respondent No.3.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 54 days in filing of this appeal stands condoned for reasons mentioned in application and accompanying affidavit. Challenge in this appeal has been invited to the legality of order dated 22.09.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Hisar in complainant No. 85 of 2015, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
2. Complainant asserted that: he purchased vehicle: Chevrolet Sail U-VALS AS TCDI having Chassis No.MA6SFBCADDT007254, Engine No.10B7YZ130780301 registration No.HR-22J-1541 from OP No.2-dealer vide invoice dated 16.05.2013 for Rs.5,87,042/-. It was insured with OP No.3 for year 2013-2014. It was under guarantee/warranty of two years period extended for one year. It is pleaded that vehicle was not of good quality; it was technically defective as its body was not of proper quality and steel used in it is/was of inferior quality and vehicle was having manufacturing defect in its engine and other parts. After few days, vehicle was brought to notice of respondent No.2-dealer and it was sent for service on 13.07.2013 at meter reading of 7092. Without his (complainant’s) consent and intimation, OP No.2-dealer changed its engine and intimated about it to him (complainant) vide letter nil. Engine No.10B7YZ130780301 was changed to new No.10FCVZ131500079. This letter, itself shows that vehicle was having manufacturing defect. He (complainant) approached OP No.2-dealer by saying that vehicle is/was having manufacturing defect and also its body is of inferior quality and requested to change vehicle with new one. OP No.2-dealer did not agree to his request. He again approached to OP No.2-dealer regarding damaged body and showed photographs but OP No.2-dealer was not ready to listen him. He lodged complaint with OP No.1-manufacturer vide email dated 12.04.2014 and 16.04.2014. OP No.2 sent him reply on 22.04.2014 and asked him to meet again. Again complainant approached OP No.2-dealer but it, earlier put off the matter by saying that: very soon vehicle will be replaced with new one. Lastly, he requested OP No.2-dealer on 31.01.2015 but it has/had totally refused to do anything. By alleging manufacturing defect in vehicle, complaint has been filed to direct OPs to make refund of cost of vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. or to replace it with new one and pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.
3. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. OP No.1-manufacturer in its written statement has pleaded that: OP No.2 is its dealer. CSIPL (Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd.) interacts with its dealers on ‘principal to principal’ basis. It cannot be held liable for any independent act and or omission, committed by OP No.2-dealer. There is no manufacturing defect in goods purchased by complainant and nor there is deficiency in its service. Proceedings initiated by complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void and without jurisdiction. Complainant has no locus standi. There is no whisper of any grievance against OP No. 1. It is denied that vehicle was not of good quality and was a defective vehicle as its body was not of proper quality and steel used in it is/was of inferior quality and was having manufacturing defect in its engine and other parts. Engine of vehicle was replaced as per warranty terms and conditions, free of cost. No such complaint regarding defect in body of vehicle was raised by complainant with OP No. 1. It is denied that complainant is entitled to get vehicle replaced with new one as same is having manufacturing defect or to claim refund of its cost with interest. Rust in vehicle is generally an unavoidable symptom of aging vehicle. Chrome and metal parts are particularly susceptible to rust over the years and there are a couple of main causes.
4. OP No.2-dealer has filed separate written statement and pleaded that: complainant approached it; purchased Chevrolet SAIL U-VA Car after its test drive. Warranty booklet/owner manual was provided to him. He did not take proper care of his car and not got its service done as per schedule given in warranty booklet/owner manual. Vehicle was reported ‘Hub bolt damaged’ on dated 13.07.2015 at 7092 KM. It was repairable, but for best services; dealership got replaced whole engine in warranty and issued letter to RTO concerned. Till 12.09.2015, subject vehicle visited 22 times at its authorized service centers and answering OPs provided best services. It is pleaded that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; he has not come with clean hands. As per plea, subject vehicle is of world class; having no defect. Quality of its body is superior. It is denied that OP No. 2 is/was not ready to listen from complainant. As per plea, complainant firstly through his email dated 12.04.2015 at 12.15 p.m. made complaint regarding rusty parts of his vehicle and he was advised to visit dealership/workshop for inspection and necessary action. He was given reminder on mail dated 16.04.2015 at 4.43 p.m., 21.04.2015 at 01.39 p.m., 24.04.2015 at 09.54 p.m. and 11.39 a.m. 24.04.2015 at 06.23 p.m. but he neither responded nor visited dealership. Having no option, his complaint was closed. It is denied that he is entitled to either get vehicle replaced with new one or for refund of its cost with interest.
5. OP No.3-insurer filed its separate written statement and pleaded that: complaint is not maintainable; there is no deficiency in its service. There are complex questions of law and facts. It is asserted that complainant took ‘Private Car Package Policy’ effective from 16.05.2014 to 15.05.2015 in respect of vehicle No.HR-22J/1541 from it. He is not entitled for any relief. No claim was ever lodged with it.
6. Parties to this lis led evidence; oral as well as documentary.
7. On critically analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar vide order dated 22.09.2017 by allowing complaint; directed OPs to pay Rs.80,000/- to complainant including cost of repair and compensation etc. to the complainant.
8. Still feeling aggrieved; complainant has filed this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant and learned counsel appearing for respondents have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
10. Learned counsel for appellant-complainant has urged that impugned order dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar is factually incorrect. In this regard, it is urged that: once it has come on record that rust has/had adversely affected the subject vehicle’s body/engine, then it would imply that quality of steel used in it was inferior, thereby fortifying complainant’s plea about manufacturing defect in it. It is urged that admitted fact regarding replacement of engine of subject vehicle with new one would further stimulate complainant’s cause of manufacturing defect in it. These circumstances, as per contention, would belie the tall claims, ever propounded by OPs/respondents regarding world class nature of vehicle in question. On these submissions; it is urged that award of Rs.80,000/- is too meager and same be enhanced.
11. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondents/OPs (manufacturer, dealer and insurer) with one voice have supported impugned order dated 22.09.2017 by urging that it is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence by learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar, thereby warranting no interference. It is urged that there is no manufacturing defect in subject vehicle, proved as such by complainant through any expert evidence. It is urged that engine of vehicle was replaced by OP No. 2-dealer, being its goodwill gesture towards consumer.
12. On analyzing rival contentions, this Commission is of firm opinion that learned District Consumer Commission has, in fact adopted a rational pragmatic approach to the controversy in hand by relying upon report of Works Manager, Haryana Roadways-Hisar, who has/had technically examined this subject vehicle. Report prepared by Sh. Jitender Yadav, Works Manager, Haryana Roadways-Hisar specifies that: rust has affected body parts of subject vehicle. May be, rust has/had been instrumental in decaying the utility of subject vehicle to some extent, yet it will not stimulate any majestic cause to complainant’s plea regarding manufacturing defect in vehicle, owing to alleged inferior quality of steel used in it. There could be end number of reasons for rust to creep in and adversely affect metallic part of any movable or immovable asset, with no exception to subject vehicle. Weather conditions of region where subject vehicle is/was being plied, could be one amongst many reasons for rust to affect its metallic body parts. Even possibility of not taking good care of vehicle by complainant/appellant cannot be ruled out and it might have added for creation/deposition of rust on metallic part of subject vehicle. More so, the complainant has not led any evidence, worth the name, in order to substantiate any manufacturing defect in vehicle and burden in law lay upon him alone. Despite there being no evidence led at the behest of complainant/appellant, learned District Consumer Commission has still relied upon the report upon Workshop Manager, Haryana Roadways-Hisar, as being a formidable and acceptable base, to award suitable compensation of Rs.80,000/- to complainant through impugned order dated 22.09.2017. There are absolutely no reasons before this Commission to enhance this compensation amount.
13. In opinion of this Commission, there is no fallacy in the judicious approach of learned District Consumer Commission-Hisar while arriving at conclusion in its order dated 22.09.2017, impugned herein. Order dated 22.09.2017 carries no illegality or infirmity and same is maintained and upheld. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
14. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. Copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 17th September, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
