STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                         U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                            (Additional Bench)

Krishna Auto Sales, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its partner Sh.Sumit Passi

                                                                                                       …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Col Bhalinder Singh Brar (Retd.) son of late Maj Harcharan Singh, resident of flat No.C-603, Maya Garden, Phase-1, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-140603

2. SKODA Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited through its Managing Director, E-1, MIDC Industrial Area, Phase-III, village, Nigoj, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Chakan Taluka Khed, Pune, Maharastra-410 501.

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 11.08.2023 passed by          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.400/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

Present   :       Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

                        Sh.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for respondent No.1

                        Sh.Kanwardeep Panjrath, Advocate for  respondent No.2. 

 PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.08.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/400/2020 by holding as under ;

  “In view of the above discussion, the present consumer      complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under:-

1. to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as  compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

          This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent  No.1 that he   purchased a SKODA Kodiaq from the Opposite parties through Canteen Stores Department of the Indian Army. The first service of the vehicle was done on 7.1.2019 at 15,000 KM. However, in less than 18 months of purchasing the vehicle started giving problem of humming sound coming from wheels  of the vehicle despite getting regular service done from OP No.2.  The complainant approached the Opposite parties several times but to no result. Later it came forth that the problem was due to incorrect wheel alignment and non-rotation of wheels and in the third service the complainant was informed that the problem was because of uneven wear of the tyres due to incorrect/non-aligned wheel rotation and the OPs informed the complainant that all the 4 tyres required replacement but at the cost of the complainant as tyres are not covered under warranty. The complainant approached the OPs many times to solve the issue but to no avail.    Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.              Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, Opposite party NO.1 stated that the complainant had reported humming noise from the wheels of the vehicle on 3rd service on 3.6.2020, when the car had already covered almost 45,000-47,000/- kilometers.  The complaint was duly inspected with regard to the humming sound in the tyres and after thorough inspection it was found  that the noise was due to wear and tear issue and not due to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The said issue was never reported during the first and second service, which were executed at 15,000 and 30,000 kilometers respectively.  It was further stated that vehicle manufacturing warranty does not cover the tyres as the same  were warranted by the tyres manufacturers themselves. Since the tyres are the all season handkook 235/55 R-18  the same are warranted by the Handkook company itself, and as such, the complainant should approach the manufacturer of tyres i.e. handkook itself,  and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP.    Denying other allegations and  pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its, a prayer was made by the OP for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 OP No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant first time informed the dealership about the humming sound on 3.6.2020, and as such he was informed with regard to uneven wear of the tyres  after diagnosis. However, it was denied  that  uneven wear of tyres was due to incorrect/non-aligned wheel rotation. As the first service was a free service, therefore, nothing was mentioned in the tax invoice and tax invoice dated 30.9.2019 contains the alignment and wheel balancing job and as such the question  of deficiency in service does not arise. It is alleged that the complainant was aware of the fact that wheel alignment was to be carried out at  the interval of 10000km but the complainant himself is negligent by not visiting the dealership at the time of odometer reading of 10000km and he has failed to show that he has undertaken the wheel alignment from any other authorized agency/dealership. Denying all other allegations, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.                   On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the Complaint of Respondent No.1/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.   

6.              Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

6.                We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.              The    ground putforth  by the appellant  in the  appeal is that that the vehicle in question was brought to the dealer at the odometer reading of 15,000, 30,000 and 46000 Kms  whereas wheels were to be changed as per owner’s manual at the odometer reading of 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000 Kms. The respondent/complainant has neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was brought to the dealer for the purpose of tyre rotation/change at the odometer reading of 10,000 and 20,000 Kms.   The respondent/complainant  brought the vehicle for the first time to the appellant dealer at the odometer reading of 15115 Kms,  and at that time there was a violation of the instructions contained in owner’s manual. The concern of Humming sound from front left wheel was raised by the respondent for the first time vide mail dated 8.7.2020 when the vehicle had already run for 47000 Kms. It is further case of the appellant that nowhere the question arose for the dealership to mention about the change of tyres as it was answerable to the manufacturer being the first free service of the vehicle in question and secondly if  it was to be taken that it has failed to mention about the change of tyres, then the question of doing the rotation at the odometer reading of 15115 K.g when the service has taken place as it would have been (tyre changed) at the odometer of 10,000 Kms as per owner’s manual.  Thus, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 11,8,2023 be set aside.   On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of  respondent No.1 that the order passed by Ld. Lower Commission being  quite justified and reasonable does not call for any interference. 

8.                It is admitted case of the parties that  the car in question was purchased on 23.5.2018 and first service was done on 7.01.2019  vide Annexure C-4, which contains the details of first PMS service, and  there is no mention of tyre rotation/wheel balancing/wheel alignment, when the odometer reading has been shown as 15,115 kms. The next service was done on 30.9.2019, when the odometer reading has been shown as 30,469 kms(Annexure C-5) and there is mention of wheel alignment and no wheel rotation. Then next service was done on 03.06.2020, when the odometer reading has been shown more than 44,000 kms (Annexure C-6). Thus, there was no proper wheel alignment and rotation carried out by the service executives which otherwise required to be carried out at each service. Vide mail dated 8.7.2020 (Annexure C-7) addressed to the manufacturer, respondent No.1 raised the concern of prominent humming sound coming from the front left wheel for the first time in the end of June, 2020 when the car had run 47,000 Kms. 

9.                   It is not disputed that as per instructions given in the Owner’s Manual at page 283 it is clearly mentioned that “ for uniform wear on all tyres, we recommend that you change the wheels every 10,000 Kms. according to the schedule” and these instructions were to be followed by the owner of the vehicle. However, it is case of the respondent/complainant that the tyres in the vehicle are of all season Hankook 235/55R18 100V, the average life of which is about 60,000 Kms, hence the tyres are not expected to be damaged or worn off at nearly half of their average life at 30,000 Kms.  and the problem of humming sound occurred  as there was no proper wheel alignment and rotation carried out by the service executives of the appellant.

10..               In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view  that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

11.                     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

12. .             Pending interlocutory  application, if any, also stands disposed of.

13                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.