Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/735/2015

Smt. Vanita - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Bhavna Joshi

24 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/735/2015
Date of Institution	:	29/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	24/04/2018

 

Smt. Vanita, aged 51 years, daughter of late Sh. Hans Raj, resident of House No.518, Near City Dog Clinic, Sector 8, Panchkula (Haryana), 134109

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Ford India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) 603204.

        Second Address : Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Building 10-C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

2.     Saluja Motors Private Ltd., Plot No.52 Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, Union Territory, India, 160002 through its Manager.

3.     Saluja Ford Service Centre, Plot No.182, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, Union Territory, India.

4.     Bhagat Ford Pvt. Ltd., AB Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.349, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Panchkula, Haryana, India.

5.     Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor, The Ferry, Icon Survey No.28, Next to Bailet, Doddana Kundi Off Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560037 through its M.D/Chairman.

        Second address : Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1^st Floor, SCO 350-351-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager. 

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                             

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pranav Chadha, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Manjit Singh, Vice Counsel for Sh. Karan Nehra, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Ankur Bali, Counsel for OPs 2 & 3
	:	Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi, Counsel for OP-4
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-5

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, OP-1 is the manufacturer of cars and sells the same in the market in the name and style of Ford.  OP-2 is the authorised dealer and distributor of OP-1 at Chandigarh.  OP-3 is the service centre of OP-2 at Chandigarh.  OP-4 is the authorized dealer and distributor of OP-1 and has its place of business at Panchkula.  OP-5 is general insurance company which provides insurance cover on goods including cars.

The long and short of allegations is, OPs have used unfair trade practice as a defective car was sold to the complainant. The total price paid towards the purchase of the car was Rs.7,92,037/- vide invoice dated 9.2.2015. The complainant had financed loan from Axis Bank and it was insured with OP-5 upon payment of Rs.19,642/-. Maintained on 11/12.2.2015, the car had some problem while applying brakes.  This fact was immediately reported to OP-2.  It was inspected in presence of many persons.  Again after covering a few kilometers it had problem. Since the sub mirror was not readily available with OP-3, it was replaced after a few days later upon payment of Rs.4,700/- by the complainant.  Averred that when the car hardly travelled 425 kms. problem developed, the complainant’s son again visited OP-3 and made a complaint in this regard, but, the problem was not diagnosed. Maintained that many times the car was repaired. Averred that amount of Rs.6,490/- was charged. Again its spare parts had to be replaced.  Averred that on 22.6.2015, the complainant and her son were going towards Sector 24/25, Panchkula near Morni Hills when the vehicle in question met with an accident and got damaged. Other averments were also made that repeated defects had occurred. Hence, the present complaint for directing the OPs to replace the car in question or refund the price thereof alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses etc.

2.         OP-1 had contested the consumer complaint and filed reply.  Preliminary objections were raised that facts were distorted and the liability of the manufacturer is from principal to principal basis.  As a matter of fact, complainant had not relied on any evidence to substantiate the allegations against OP-1. Accidents had taken place and parts were damaged and now it is being pleaded that there is a manufacturing defect just to get the car replaced.  On these lines the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OPs 2 & 3 also filed their replies and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections, complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and it does not disclose cause of action. Inconsistent stands are being taken. It was claimed that the car was defect free, but, the parts were damaged due to accidents and the same were replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. Averred that repairs were done to the satisfaction of the complainant. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         OP-4 also furnished separate reply raising similar objections.
5.         OP-5 insurance company had claimed that after the major accident, the insurance claim has been settled and Rs.1,92,825/- as per terms and conditions of the policy had been paid to the complainant.  On these lines the cause is sought to be defended.
6.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  Per scrutiny of the record, the conclusions are as follows :-
8.         A meticulous perusal of the pleadings of the parties shows that the consumer complaint was lodged after a major accident.  It is the defence of the OPs that the fact of the matter is that the parts were damaged in the accident due to negligent driving and now it is being attributed as a manufacturing defect. It is also the case that had there been any manufacturing defect, when sometimes the repairs were got done, the complainant could have lodged such like complaint or could have in black and white informed to the trader or the manufacturer in respect of the manufacturing defects noticed in the car. At that juncture, no such correspondence was done when the bill was charged for repairs. Therefore, by application of preponderance of probabilities, the defence set up seems to be genuine one as this consumer complaint was launched when a major accident had taken place.
9.         Per pleadings of the complainant, after a major accident had taken place, the insurer had not indemnified while in the reply furnished on behalf of Bharti AXA/insurer, the matter has been settled and the requisite claim has been handed over to the complainant.  These facts are not in dispute before us regarding the payment of the claim during the course of arguments which was referred to in the reply of insurer i.e. OP-5.
10.         Manufacturing defect is such a defect which could only be noticed after examination by the technical experts i.e. to say Mechanical Engineers and they could opine that there exist some inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle when the parts were assembled.  This is for the experts to opine as such. Layman’s claim, like of the complainant, cannot be substituted as report of the expert to suggest existence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. 
11.         Further scrutiny of the record shows that on application, expert committee was appointed and their fee was assessed as Rs.22,900/- which was not paid by the complainant which goes to suggest that the complainant was not interested to get the vehicle in question examined from experts i.e. the Professors of Punjab Engineering College to detect the manufacturing defect, if any, in the car. Non deposit of fee shows that adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant that the facts averred with regard to the manufacturing defects were not proved otherwise the complainant would have opted for its examination by the expert committee of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. Thus, in the absence of the report of the expert engineers, this conclusion cannot be recorded that there existed a manufacturing defect in the car so sold by the OPs and purchased by the complainant. Thus, on this score, for want of expert committee report, the safe conclusion is that there was no such manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question so as to hold as such and record a finding that there was deficiency in service.  Pertinently, in the accident occurred, claim has been disbursed by the Insurance Company to the complainant.
12.         It is true that some minor parts were replaced repeatedly, but, it cannot be attributed that there was a manufacturing defect and this possibility also cannot be ruled out that there was faulty driving on account of which the parts were damaged and had to be replaced, therefore, they were not covered under the warranty.  It is also the case that in some of the bills, labour charges were also charged.  If there was any damage to the parts of the vehicle, same were not covered under the warranty as there was negligent driving and the amount needed to be charged inclusive of labour. No separate complaint was lodged that during the warranty and due to certain development of defects in the parts, these had to be replaced and, therefore, the complainant i.e. the consumer was not liable to pay said charges.
13.         The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon case Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. Rohit Jain, 2016 (2) CLT 528 (NC), operative part of which reads as under ;-

“32.  Thus, this act of the petitioner in selling a car to the complainant in 2002 and thereafter, immediately stopping production of the subject car after one year and not having sufficient stocks of engine or its parts parts with it, are certainly unfair trade practice as well as restrictive trade practice.  Both the fora below have gone into detail on every aspect of the mater and we find no ground to disagree with the well-reasoned findings given by both the fora below.”

However, the present case does not anywhere prove that there were defective parts or that the manufacturer stopped production of the cars. Rather the possibility of the parts having been damaged in the accidents has not been ruled out. It has not been proved beyond doubt that the parts were not damaged.

14.         Keeping in view the aforesaid conclusions, which have been derived from the record, we are of the opinion that neither there has been any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. There is no merit in the present consumer complaint and we proceed to dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President