Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/114/2021

Shailendra Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Niharika Gupta

31 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/114/2021
Date of Institution	:	19/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	31/05/2024

 

Shailendra Singh aged about 37 years, S/o Late Kunwar Shailendra Singh, r/o Village Theda, Post office Lodhimajra, Teh-Baddi, Theda (165), Solan, Himachal Pradesh-174101.

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Ford India Pvt Ltd, S.P. Koil Post, Chengal Pattu, Tamil Nadu-603204, through its Managing Director.

2. Saluja Ford, Plot No.52, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Director.

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Srishti S.Sharma, Advocate for Complainant (through VC).
	:	Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Ankur Bali, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant under the name M/s Highway Filling Station, Baddi, Distt Solan, in the month of April, 2019 bought a brand-new car Ford Endeavour, colour A.Black from the OP No.2. After 2 months of the purchase of the car, the complainant noticed that the paint of the car was chipping off. The complainant took the car to OP No.2 and OP No.2 said that it has a manufacturing defect and cannot help the complainant with anything more than just repairing the damaged paint. OP No.2 repaired it but it still looked that bad. Again, in the month of October 2019, the complainant noticed an oil leakage from the car. Again, he took the car to OP No.2 and OP No.2 informed the complainant that its Gear oil leakage from the car, the complainant had to face so many difficulties due to non-availability of car. In the month of December, 2019, the complainant had to approach OP No.2 again with the complaint of oil leakage from the car. The car was kept in the service station for more than 10 days again due to which the complainant and his family had to face difficulties. The complainant had to bring his car to service station thrice in a span of 8 months from the date of purchase of the car, because of manufacturing defect. The complainant even approached OPs for the replacement of his vehicle as his vehicle was within warranty and the car had manufacturing defect but the OPs refused. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 09.12.2020 and OP No.2 sent a reply to the notice on 15.12.2020 refused to replace the car in question. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the concerned vehicle has been purchased by a proprietorship concern and thus the concerned vehicle has been purchased for commercial purposes. Thus, the owner of the concerned vehicle is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is further submitted that all the allegations in the present complaint pertain to OP-2 as all the service and repair has occurred at the service centre. It is submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 are two separate legal entities and work only on a principal-to-principal relationship basis. It is also stated that the OP-2 is not an agent of the OP-1 & thus, one cannot be held liable for the actions of another. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not pleaded mandatory pleadings and necessary averments in the above titled complaint and has not supported by any documents, expert report etc., to prove said averments with regard to inherent manufacturing defect as alleged in the vehicle in question. It is further stated that at the time when the vehicle had been brought in October 2019, the vehicle in question had already covered 12,878 Kms and there is bound to be certain wear and tear. At the relevant time, six months had already passed after the purchase of the vehicle in question and the answering OP after replacing the oil seal of the gear box had handed over the vehicle in question and it had been specifically informed to the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle is being handed over only under observation and in case, the oil seal leaks again, then, the vehicle has to be brought back to the answering OP for further checkup and when the owner of the vehicle in question had again approached the answering OP, the answering OP with consultation with OP No.1 had decided to change the Torque Converter assembly which had been replaced without charging any amount from the owner and replaced the same with the new one being the vehicle under warranty. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     Through the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle of the complainant alongwith compensation and costs of litigation as the vehicle in question is having some inherent manufacturing defect. The moot issue in the present case is with regard to inherent/internal manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. From the material on record, it is manifest that no expert opinion of any authorized laboratory or authority has been brought on record to establish that the vehicle suffered from any defect that could be ascribed to the manufacturer of the vehicle by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle was not properly attended to or that the defects were not rectified as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. Therefore, no deficiency in service has been established in this particular case either on account of any manufacturing defect of the vehicle or repairs done by the OPs for which they need to be held liable. In the absence of any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects cannot be believed as such being only hollow assertions of the complainant without any supporting evidence. We are of the considered opinion that an inherent manufacturing defect needs to be established through the process of examination by way of an expert opinion. Without such an examination being undertaken, the conclusion that there were inherent manufacturing defects cannot be arrived at. Defects which are covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty cannot be ascribed to be an inherent manufacturing defect without the requisite examination of the vehicle. The defects which are covered under the terms of warranty cannot be concluded to be a manufacturing defect. In the absence of any expert opinion, such a conclusion is conjectural and based on surmise and cannot be sustained.
8.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
31/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member