Haryana

Karnal

419/2011

Madan Mohan S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fiat India Automobile Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Bathla

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.419 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.:15.07.2011

                                                              Date of decision:24.01.2017

 

 Madan Mohan son of Dharam Pal resident of House no.291/23, Nehru Colony, Assandh, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. c/o 19 Ranjangaon MIDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon-412210, Taluka Shirur, District Pune-India through its Director/Managing partner.

2. Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager c/o Showroom-cum-workshop, plot no.23, sector-25, HUDA part-1, Panipat.

3. Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.  through its Manager c/o NH-1, 119/4, K.M.Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal.

4. Malawa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. c/o NH-1, 31 K.M. Stone, Kundi through its Manager.

5. Swan Motors (P) Ltd. C/o Rohtak Road, near Fly over, Sonepat-131001 through its Manager.

                                                                        ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Arun Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. C.J. Wadhwa  Advocate for the Opposite parties no.2 to 4.

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                   Sh. Mohit Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.5.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Fiat Linae, Variant-DI Emotion Park bearing chasis no.MCA-1107170900 933CQZ, Engine no.0016566, on 17.8.2009, from opposite party no.2. After few days, he realized that there were some defects/problems in the car. Gear box was not working well, there were problem of shocker, front seat was not in comfortable position and major problem in turbo power system. He approached opposite party no.3 on 17.12.2009 with major problems, but the defects persisted, therefore, he again visited opposite party no.3 in January, 2010 and reported that there were problems of clutch hard, noise from rear brakes, bonnet not opening properly and driving seat adjustment was not proper. Some parts were replaced under the warranty and other were repaired. The turbo power system had not been working properly since the beginning and the same was replaced under warranty on 19.2.2010. In February, 2010, he again reported problems in the car and at that time few parts were replaced under warranty. Matter was again reported in the month of April, 2010 regarding problems of poor pick-up, unusual suspension noise, vehicle vibration too high and seat adjustment. By then the opposite parties had also started to feel that the car was having some manufacturing problems and the mechanics of opposite party no.5 advised to talk to higher management for replacement of the car. Then he talked to the management. He was assured that the matter would be reported to the higher authorities, but nothing fruitful came out. He again reported problems in the car on 5.10.2010 and 11.11.2010. Lastly, the matter was reported on 17.3.2011, but no heed was paid to his request. The problems of the turbo power system, gear box and smoke problem continued. Six times the shockers were changed and driving seat problem persisted. He was told by the mechanics that he was cheated and was delivered demo car instead of new one and such facts could be verified from the pipeline, Alloy wheels, head lights, coil, cooling unit where the manufacturing date was given as of August, 2008, though he purchased the car in August,2009. When he purchased the car, after few days he reported to the concerned officials that there was dent on the right side rear door. He was promised to change the same with new one and such fact was given in writing. However, the door was not replaced. During the period of two years he had covered 38000Kms only and most of the time he had to visit Karnal or too Sonepat to get repaired his vehicle roadworthy. Once he had gone to Hisar for his personal work and suddenly the car got some problem and he had to land up at Tata Motors authorized service centre for repair work. They changed the suspension, shockers and arm leg. Such acts of omission and commission of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, which caused him mental shock and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 despite notice through registered post. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it, vide order dated 28.5.2013.

3.                Opposite parties no.2 to 4 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed only to harass the opposite parties.

                    On merits, it has been submitted that there were minor wear and tear defects in the vehicle, which required minor adjustment from time to time. The parts which had failed were replaced urgently under warranty, but there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The first checkup was required to be carried out on covering the distance of 1000 to 1500 kilometers, but complainant got first check up carried out on 8021 kilometers on 25.11.2009. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                Opposite party no.5 also filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that there is no specific allegation against opposite party no.5 and as such it is not the necessary party; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action against opposite party no.5 and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.5.

                   On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.4 on various dates as mentioned in para no.4 of the written statement and every time repair work was done to his optimum satisfaction. If, the complainant alleged manufacturing defect of the vehicle, the claim could arise only against the manufacturer and dealer, who had purchased the vehicle. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.5. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of Ravinder Bhathla Ex.CW1/A  and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and Ex.C13/A have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rahul Shalmo Manager Ex.OP3/1 and documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/9 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased fiat Linae, Variant-DI Emotion Park car manufactured by opposite party no.1, from opposite party no.2 on 17.8.2009. As per the allegations of complainant after few days of purchasing the car the same started giving some problems and he had to visit the work shop of opposite party no.4 repeatedly for repairs of the car. Though some parts were replaced in the warranty, but some defects could not be rectified. It has also been alleged that there was dent on the right side rear window, which indicated that the car was a demo car. It has further been alleged that as per service history the first service of the car was done on 11.8.2009 i.e. before purchase of the same by him, which shows that the car was old one and after repairing sold to him.

7.                The copy of the service history Ex.C13 shows that the car was first serviced on 11.08.2009 at 9kms and some repairing work was done. Admittedly, there was dent on the right side rear door and the opposite party no.3 had given in writing Ex.C14 that the rear door would be replaced. This fact only indicates that when the car was driven for testing and for other purposes some defects were found in the same and dent appeared when the same covered only distance of 9Kms. Had the car been used for demo purposes then certainly it must have covered long distance instead of just 9Kms. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the car was used as demo car prior to sale of the same to the complainant. Before sale the car was checked and the defects in any part thereof were either removed or the parts were replaced. Only a dent on the rear right side door remained and the opposite party no.2 was bound to replace that door.  Not replacing that door amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.

8.                The complainant approached opposite party no.4 for the first time on 17.12.2009 and pointed out some defects/problems in the car. The complainant has produced the copies of job cards Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and the copy of service history Ex.C13.The opposite parties have also produced the copies of the job cards Ex.OP3/3 to Ex.OP3/9. These documents show that the rear seat was replaced on 17.12.2009, again there was problem of the seat on 22.01.2010 and on 2.4.2010, driver’s seat was replaced on 27.10.2010 and again on 17.3.2011. However, the seat problem persisted and the complainant complained about the same on 11.8.2011 also. Thus, it is emphatically clear that there was some problem in the seat. The opposite party no.4 always attended to that problem and replaced the seat with new one. Front strut was replaced on 8.2.2010, shock absorbers front strut(each) were replaced on 27.10.2010, again there was problem of front strut on 18.12.2010, shock absorber on 22.10.2010, 17.3.2011 and 20.9.2011, front strut was replaced on 27.2.2012 also. The complainant made complaint regarding excessive smoke on 8.2.2010 and 15.4.2011, but the turbo compressor was replaced when the vehicle had covered 12635 Kms, as is evident from Ex.C5. The complainant also made complaint regarding Dashboard Rattling on 17.12.2009, noise from break 22.1.2010, noise of Blower of Air Conditioner on 6.2.2010, noise from gear box on 11.11.2010, noise from under carriage on 18.12.2010, 20.12.2010 and 18.5.2011, noise from door while closing on 17.3.2011 and door closed rattling on 18.6.2011. The complainant also made complaint regarding insufficient cooling on 11.8.2009, 25.11.2009 and 5.10.2010. Ultimately, the entire A.C. panel was replaced. Complainant also made complaint regarding clutch hard on 22.1.2010 and clutch slips on 17.12.2009, Gear noise check on 11.11.2010 and gear shifting hard on 18.12.2010.

9.                From the aforementioned repeated complaints by the complainant regarding various parts of the car as per service history, it is clear that there were some complaints in various parts of the car. The opposite party no.4 attended to those problems and either replaced the defective parts under warranty or repaired the same.  No doubt the complainant has not obtained the report of any mechanical expert to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the car, but the fact remains that he had to visit the workshop repeatedly regarding some problems in the car, which tends to show that there were some inherent problems/defects in the car, which could not be rectified completely. Therefore, he is entitled to get compensation and manufacturer of the car would be liable to pay the same.

10.              The car was purchased by the complainant on 17.8.2009 and the same is being used by him since then. Therefore, replacement of the car with new car would not be justified and it would be proper to give reasonable compensation.

11.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint partly and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.75,000/-(seventy five thousand only)  to the complainant as compensation for inherent problems/defects in the car sold to him. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to replace the rear door of the car. We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount will not be paid within stipulated period, then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 24.1.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member