PRESENT: Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.K.S.Sidhu, Adv. & Sh. Anupam Bansal, Adv. for OP No.1.

           Sh.A.P.S. Shergill, Adv. for OP No.2.

           Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Adv. for OP No.3.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, impressed after going through various advertisements, published by the Opposite Parties, prior to 15.02.2007, the Complainant preferred to sell his previous Tata Indica car and purchase the FORD fiesta car from the Opposite Parties. For the purpose, he visited the showroom of the Opposite Party No. 2 on and around 13.02.2007 and enquired about the performance of the vehicle, upon which he was assured that the vehicle gives about 30 plus Kms average per liter, if the same is driven in the city like Chandigarh. Accordingly, he preferred to purchase Ford Fiesta ZXI  (TDCI) color Platinum from the Opposite Party No. 2. He paid a total a sum of Rs. 7,46,600/- to the OP No. 1, out of this amount a sum of Rs. 7,36,000/- was towards the cost of the vehicle and Rs. 10,600/- was on account of extended warranty for a period of two years after expiry of one year. It was alleged that after receiving the amount, the Opposite Party No. 2 informed the complainant that the vehicle was not available in the showroom and will be brought from outside. After about 4-5 hours, the vehicle was brought from somewhere by road and delivered to the complainant. The meter reading was showing coverage of 21 Kms. The Opposite Party No.2 also issued cover note dated 16.02.2007 of the Opposite Party No. 3 and insured the vehicle for a period of one year. It was also alleged that from the very beginning, the complainant experienced following problems in the vehicle :-

a]  Loud noise coming from the beneath portion of the car.

b]    Abnormal tyre wearing.

c]  Front driver side speaker of the music system was defective and was not giving proper utilization.

d]    The covers around the gear were loose.

e]  Glove compartment cover was loose and was giving extra regular noise.

f]    Horn of the car was defective.

g]  Average was around 18 kms per liter against the assured 33 kms per liter coverage.

h]    Steering lock defective.

i]    Vehicle was giving extra smoke.

        It was averred that that as per the service schedule recommended by the Opposite Party No. 1, the vehicle was to be taken to the service stations after coverage of 1500 kms, 5000 kms, 10000 kms and then after coverage of every 10000 kms or at a gap of six months. However, due to problems in the vehicle, the complainant has taken the same to the authorized service stations on 17.03.2007, 30.03.2007, 13.05.2007, 01.07.2007, 18.08.07, 28.12.07, 09.02.2008, 31.05.2008 and 13.08.2008 etc.  Particulars of the visits, complaints lodged, jobs carried out etc. are given as under:-

        The complainant received telephonic call from no. 01726543330 to mobile no. 9914044215 on 12.04.2007 at 5.34 p.m. and confirmed the existence of speaker problems, extra tyre wearing, expected coverage of Kilometers per litre, digital meter and voice below the body of the car.  From 10.05.07 onwards the complainant received various calls on his mobile no. 9914044215 but nothing was done by the Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 on his visits to them.  The defects of balance fuel meter were pointed out a number of times but were ignored by the service station under the pretext that it was not a successful meter and company is going to replace all these digital meters. He wrote letter dated 14.05.2007 to the Opposite Parties and paid a sum of Rs.2448/- on 18.08.2007 and Rs. 2549/- on 28.12.2007. It was also alleged that the Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 could not remove the defects and directed the complainant to avail super saver scheme of nitrogen gas, three times wheel alignment, three times balancing services in a year on payment of Rs. 999/- such as to obtain optimum utilization of the vehicle. The complainant paid the said amount but still the services were not provided by the Opposite Party No. 2. On 13.08.2008, in the early morning hours, the complainant went to Panchkula alone and was coming back to his house between 5.30 am to 6.00 am. The road leading to Chandigarh Housing Board red light chowk to Sector 26, Chandigarh was almost vacant. The complainant was driving the car at the speed of about 55 – 60 kms. When the car of the complainant reached near red light situated near Kalagram, then suddenly the left wheel of the car broke down from the shaft of front axle, vehicle became unbalanced and rammed into road side tree. The chest of the complainant was pressed with the steering wheel. The vehicle was not hit by any vehicle. The accidented vehicle was not in position to be moved. Front side of the vehicle, left door, left fender, right fender, front bumper etc. of the vehicle were badly damaged. Thus the vehicle was towed with the help of a crane to the accidental workshop of the Opposite Party No. 2 subject to payment of Rs. 500/- to the crane. The said accident has not taken place due to any negligence on the part of the complainant rather due to breakage of shaft of front axle. The shaft was suffering from the manufacturing defects.  The representative of the Opposite Party No. 2 assured to do the needful without any charges.  Signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank printed papers and intimation of the said loss was given to the Opposite Party No. 3 the next day i.e. on 14.08.2008. The vehicle was assured to be delivered within 15-20 days after due repairs/replacement. On job card, the complainant gave specific remarks that free of cost services were to be provided by the Opposite Party No. 2. Nothing was done till 03.09.2008. However, the complainant was directed by the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay Rs. 30,000/- for the purchase of spare parts. The said amount was paid to the Opposite Party No. 2 vide cheque no. 348988 dated 03.09.2008 and the Opposite Party No. 2 assured to deliver the vehicle within 7 days. But still nothing was done by the Opposite Party No. 1 till 10.09.2008. No repair work was started. Various telephonic reminders remained futile so on 15.09.2008, the complainant again visited the Opposite Party No. 2 and requested it to start job at the earliest or return the car and the amount paid by him. It was only on 15.09.2008, that when the Opposite Party no. 2 started denting job in the car. The painting job was completed within next three days but the bumper arranged for the car of the complainant, was fixed in some other car and bumper was not available for his car so  the work could not be completed.  It was only on 25.09.2008 that the Opposite Party No. 2 delivered the car to the complainant on making the further payment of       Rs.6500/- vide receipt no. 3847 (total amount paid Rs.36,500/-). The vehicle of the complainant was insured by the Opposite Party No. 3 through the Opposite Party No. 2.  All the Opposite Parties initially joined hands and pressurized the complainant to get compensation of losses from the Opposite Party No. 3. However, the complainant protested against the same and in turn the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant, without insisting for insurance claim from the Opposite Party NO. 3.  However, the intimation and claim form for the insurance claim were initially filled up with blank satisfaction note. The Opposite Party  No. 2 delivered the vehicle to the complainant after receiving the amount of Rs. 36,500/- against the bill of Rs. 1,38,710/-. The Opposite Party No. 2 assured that the damaged shaft, and damaged tyres were also replaced on free of cost basis. But in fact one of the brand new tyres of the stepny was changed and defective tyre was fitted in the stepny without any instructions from the complainant. Details of the jobs were not provided to the complainant despite repeated demands.  The vehicle is still defective and the complainant is experiencing the following defects in the vehicle :-

a] Low average of around  18 kms per liter instead of 33 KMs per liter as claimed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2.

b] Balance fuel indication meter is defective and is showing balance of fuel at higher side.

c] Wheel alignment defective causing extra/unusual wearing of the tyres. With Such defects even the radial tubeless tyres require replacement after every 30000 kms instead of normal tyre life of 60000 kms.

d] Balancing of the wheels such as to remove wobbling in steering

e] Paint is defective and surface of the painted area is not plain. Color of the paint is mismatching due to which the vehicle is giving a shabby look.

f] Bumper is having extra gap with the body of the car.

g] Central locking is not working although it was properly working when the vehicle was delivered to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 13.08.2008

h] Fenders are having gap with the remaining parts of body of the car.

i] Wheel plate not replaced and is damaged.

J] Defective tyre not replaced although assured to be replaced with new one. The front driver side tyre was replaced with stepny tyre without any instructions from the complainant and it was represented that the new tyre has been changed.

k] Noise level of the vehicle has been increased and the parts fitted by the complainant are not properly matching with the vehicle.

l] Right side fender work has not been shown in the estimate job, job card and its dents have been left unattended.

m] The vehicle has lost its market value and is not in proper as well as required shape.

It was also averred that the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle under protest only and had given special remarks on 25.09.08 about the unattended jobs/defects etc. on the gate pass. Whereas the gate pass of the Opposite Party No. 2 includes satisfaction voucher. He had requested the Opposite Party No. 2 to rectify the problems and in turn the Opposite Party No. 2 was insisting him to sign the satisfaction voucher. All the parts replaced by the Opposite Party no. 2 were with the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 has wrongly obtained a sum of Rs. 36,500/- from him and has not even brought  the vehicle to its required condition. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 were liable to replace the vehicle of the complainant and now the complainant has came to know that the vehicle of old make/model had been sold by the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 to him. In fact, the vehicle was not manufactured in the month of February, 2007, i.e. the month in which it was sold to the complainant. Although, the Opposite Party No.2 represented that the vehicle was manufactured and received by them in the month of February, 2007 itself. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 were claiming that unladen  weight of the vehicle of the complainant was 1100 kg. But the car of complainant was not having unladen weight of 1100 kgs. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have wrongly charged the amount of Rs. 36,500/- despite the fact the vehicle was under warranty and the said accident has taken place due to breaking of the front shaft axle without any hit from any side and only due to manufacturing defects. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  The OP No.1 & 2 be directed to replace the vehicle in question with defect free vehicle and or to take back the defective vehicle and refund the amount of Rs.7,36,000/- with interest @15% p.a. from 16.2.2007 till actual date of realization of the amount and Rs.36,500/- with interest @15% from the date of payment till actual date of realization of the amount to the Complainant.

b)  The OPs be directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for committing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and for causing mental harassment and agony.

c)  The OPs be directed to pay the litigation charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/- towards the unwarranted and uncalled for litigation.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OP No. 1 in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that they had not published any advertisement declaring mileage of its vehicle to be 33 Km per liter. Mileage of the vehicle depends upon lots of other factors such as the acceleration, weight on the accelerator, optimum speed levels, proper tyre inflation, correct gear transmission, weight loaded in the car, air conditioning/ window usage, proper vehicle maintenance etc. The mileage of 31.4 Km per liter was achieved by an auto magazine authority under test conditions. There were never any false assurances to the Complainant by the OP No. 1 & 2 nor there was any authorization or instruction to OP No. 2 to make such assurances. It was denied that the Complainant faced any problem with the brand new car.  The vehicle reported for service on 17.03.2007 for the first free service and the same was carried out to the satisfaction of the Complainant and delivered on the same date. The Complainant had raised concerns with regard to tyre wearing and extra noise during the service. On diagnosis by the service personnel, the same being checked in road test, and was found normal and the vehicle was delivered back to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The same concerns were reported by the Complainant on 30.3.2007 and on diagnosis of the concerns reported in the vehicle, it  was found normal and the vehicle was returned to him to his satisfaction. The Complainant reported the vehicle for the second free service on 13.5.2007 after clocking 5141 Kms. He had reported concerns in rear tyres, front RHS speaker, mileage and lower noise in the vehicle. The service personnel carried out the free service as per schedule and on diagnosis of the vehicle, it was found that there was no concern in rear tyres, front RHS speaker, mileage and lower noise and the same was found normal and the vehicle was delivered back in good working condition to the Complainant. It was submitted that the Complainant had reported the vehicle for the running repair service on 04.07.2007 at 7286 Km and not 01.07.2007 as stated in the complaint. The vehicle was reported for front noise, average, consol cover and lock system. The same was tested in road test and found normal and the vehicle was delivered back to the Complainant on the same date.  Subsequently, the vehicle was reported for third free service to the service personnel of the OPs on 18.8.2007 after clocking 9814 Kms. The concerns reported in the vehicle were concerns in tyre rotation, front two wheels balancing and alignment, console lock and noise in LHS rear side of the vehicle. It was submitted that the allegations with regard to the defects in the vehicle were vague and the Complainant had been raising vague allegations without there being any basis for the same. Inspite of the same, the Service Personnel of the OPs had examined the concerns reported by the Complainant and found the vehicle normal. The Complainant brought the vehicle for the first paid service on 28.12.2007 at 17510 Kms. The said service was done to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Subsequently, he bought the vehicle for another service on 9.2.2008 at 19357 Kms for the alleged concerns being wobbling steering, harsh ride and noise of the shocker. The concern of wobbling steering was checked in road test and found normal and the concern of harsh ride and noise of shocker were rectified and the same was replaced with rear shock absorber promptly by the service personnel of OP No. 2. The vehicle was bought for service on 31.5.2008 for clocking 24382 Kms for alleged concern in wheel alignment. The service personnel of the OP checked the same with FSE approved computerized wheel aligner on Foc basis and were found normal and nitrogen gas was filled up. It was submitted that the concerns reported by the Complainant in certain parts of the vehicle were not defective and the vehicle needed only tuning of parts and not repair or replacement and the faults were rectified by the service personnel of the OP No. 2 to the satisfaction of the Complainant under warranty and at no cost. Subsequently, the Complainant brought the vehicle to the service center of the OPs for accidental repairs on 18.8.2008. It was submitted that on diagnosis of the vehicle in question, it was found that the vehicle had suffered damage due to an accident leading to consequential damage to PAN Assembly and Shaft Front Axle and many significant parts like Guard Front Splash, Spindle Rod Con (LH), Shock absorber (front LH), Shaft Front Axle, Arm Assembly Front Suspension, Hose Assembly Brake etc. were broken and damaged in the vehicle due to the accident. It was submitted that the accidental repairs were carried out in a prompt manner by the service personnel of OPs. And the Complainant was charged for the aforesaid repairs, since the same could not be covered under warranty on account of accident to the car. It was pleaded that all the concerns which the Complainant was alleging in the complaint were minor in nature and were rectified as and when the vehicle was reported for servicing. It was denied that the Shaft front axle of the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect and resulted in the accident of the vehicle on that account. The Complainant had abused the vehicle beyond comprehension and had violated the terms and conditions of the warranty and thereby invalidated the same. Only for the aforesaid reasons, the OPs have refused to repair the vehicle under warranty. It was further pleaded that the concerns of the Complainant were always attended and all the repairs have been done in a prompt manner. The delay, if any, was on the part of the Complainant, as he did not approach the OPs for taking the delivery of the car. It was only after repeated reminders that the Complainant came to take delivery of the car on 23.9.2008. It was further asserted that the warranty does not cover claims arising from the damages attributable to impact of road accident and the Complainant was mistaken in stating that he was wrongly charged a sum of Rs.36,500/-. In fact, the Complainant had made no case or ground of any relief in his favour.  All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      OP No. 2 in their reply pleaded that they have never advertised about the fact that they were world record holders and further, the average of any car depends on the driving habits, of every person. It was submitted that OP No. 1 does not have any office in Chandigarh, nor any of the Sale Representative of OP No. 1 deals directly with any customer for selling any vehicle.  It was asserted that the Complainant had visited them with four problems on 13.05.2007 and a job card was prepared addressing the problems. After this, the same day, the Complainant specifically stated in the Vehicle Gate Pass that the car had been attended to his satisfaction. On the next day i.e. 14.05.2007, the Complainant approached the OP No. 1 through a letter in which he pointed out nine other problems in his car, out of which, some of the problems had never been addressed to the OP No. 2. He had given satisfaction reports on every date of his visit and there had been no complaint of that particular problem again. The allegations made with regard to the average and the under chassis noise were nothing but an attempt to blackmail and harass the OP No. 2 for extracting undue advantage from them. It was also pleaded that the facts submitted by the Complainant were contradictory, as on one hand, he submitted that the wheel came out of the shaft at the time of the accident and on the other hand, he submitted that the shaft itself broke. When the car came to the Workshop of OP No. 2, the Complainant was absent and the job card was made at that time. On the next day i.e. on 14.8.2008, he intimated the insurance company vide letter that the vehicle had met with an accident and had also filed a claim form with the Insurance Company stating that the car had met with an accident when the wheel came out of the shaft and hit a nearby tree. As the Complainant was not taking any interest in the repair of the car, OP No. 2 wrote a letter reminding him of the damaged car, after which he sent money for the repairs. Even when the car was repaired, he did not approach OP No. 2 for receiving the car back. It was only after many reminders that he came to take the delivery on 23.9.2008. Not only that, the Complainant was also reminded constantly about getting the driving license and registration certificate verified from the Surveyor. The delay was on the part of the Complainant in payment of the money and the verification of his registration certificate and driving license. It was further pleaded that according to the gate pass issued on 23.9.2008, the Complainant had written that the fender work was pending, which clearly established that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and thus, the intention of the Complainant from the very beginning was to blackmail OP No.2. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      OP No. 3 in their written statement, admitted that vehicle in question was insured with them for the period 16.2.2008 to 15.2.2009. It was submitted that the Complainant gave the intimation of loss on account of accident on 14.8.2008 vide letter Annexure R-3/1. On the receipt of information of loss to the vehicle, a Surveyor was deputed to do the survey, assess the loss and collect all the relevant documents for the verification and assessment of the loss/ damage caused to the vehicle and also to assess the claims under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,38,710/- and the claim was passed by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.1,02,000/-, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The said amount of Rs.1,02,000/- was to be paid to the Complainant on production of receipt that the payment had already been made by him to the repairer or that the payment was to be made to the repairer after the signing of satisfaction voucher by the insured/Complainant. Here in this case, no satisfaction voucher was signed by the insured/ Complainant and hence, the payment could not be released to repairer. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

6]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the Complainant and OP No. 1, 2 & 3. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased one Ford Fiesta ZXI (TDCI) colour Platinum car from OP No. 2 on 16.2.2007 for Rs.7,36,000/- and also paying a sum of Rs.10,600/- on account of extended warranty for a period of another 02 years after the expiry of initial one year, have all been admitted. The case of the Complainant is that right from the beginning, he explained the following problems in the vehicle to the OPs:- 

a] Loud noise coming from the beneath portion of the car.

b]    Abnormal tyre wearing.

c] Front driver side speaker of the music system was defective and was not giving proper utilization.

d] The covers around the gear were loose.

e] Glove compartment cover was loose and was giving extra regular noise.

f]    Horn of the car was defective.

g] Average was around 18 kms per liter against the assured 33 kms per liter coverage.

h]    Steering lock defective.

i]    Vehicle was giving extra smoke.

He further says that apart from the normal service schedule recommended by OP No.1, the vehicle had to be taken to the Service Station a number of times between 17.3.2007, till 13.8.2008, on account of different problems being faced by him in respect of the working of the vehicle. According to him, despite making a large number of visits to the OPs, especially OP No. 2, the defects in question were not removed and he had to make certain payments also on 18.8.2007 Rs.2,448/- and 28.12.2007 Rs.2,549/-, but still he was not satisfied about the functioning of the car. Finally, on 13.8.2008, in the morning when the Complainant had gone to Panchkula and was returning from there at about 5.30 AM, suddenly, the left wheel of the car broke down from the shaft of front axle, the vehicle became unbalanced and rammed into a road side tree. Due to the impact of the accident, the chest of the Complainant was pressed against the steering wheel and the vehicle was so much damaged that it had to be towed with the help of crane to the accidental workshop of OP No. 2 by making a payment of Rs.500/-, as the crane charges. Front side of the vehicle, left door, left fender, right fender and front bumper etc. of the vehicle were badly damaged in the accident. The entire case of the Complainant has been that this accident has not taken place due to any negligence on the part of the Complainant, but the same happened due to breakage of shaft of the front axle, because the shaft was suffering from manufacturing defect. Further, the accidental vehicle was not repaired till 3.9.2008 by the OPs and he had to pay Rs.30,000/- to OP No. 2 for the purchase of spare parts by them. Finally, it was only on 25.9.2008 that OP No. 2 delivered the car to the Complainant on receiving further payment of Rs.6,500/-. Thus, the Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.36,500/- to OP No. 2, against the bill of Rs.1,38,710/-. OP No. 2 had assured the Complainant that the damaged shaft and damaged tyres were also replaced on free of cost basis, which was not a correct statement. Based on these grounds, the Complainant is asking for compensation and costs etc.

   ii]   All the allegations made by the Complainant against OP No. 1 & 2 have been denied by the OPs, especially with regard to the kilo meterage per liter and various other complaints being made by the Complainant with regard to the functioning of the vehicle. In its reply, OP No. 1, which is the manufacturer of the car in question has clearly stated that the vehicle in question reported for the 03 free services on 17.3.2007, 13.5.2007 and 18.8.2007. In between, it also came to OP No. 2 for running repairs on 4.7.2007. During all these 04 services done by OP No.2, the concerns reported in the vehicle were properly attended to and the vehicle was repaired and serviced to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant.  There was no major or minor defect in the car till such time, as it met with an accident, when it was driven by the Complainant himself on 13.08.2008 and the vehicle was brought to the Service Center of the OPs (OP No.2) for accidental repairs on 18.8.2008. It was then found that the vehicle had suffered damage only due to an accident leading to consequential damage to PAN Assembly and Shaft Front Axle and many other significant parts like Guard Front Splash, Spindle Rod Con (LH), Shock absorber (front LH), Shaft Front Axle, Arm Assembly Front Suspension, Hose Assembly and Brake etc. As per this OP, all these repairs were carried out by the OP No.2 (Service Center) to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. Further, since it was a case of accident and there were consequential damages, the case could not be covered under normal warranty terms & conditions, which does not specifically cover accidents & damages arising out of the same. But otherwise, all other complaints made by the Complainant, apart from the accidental damage, were minor in nature and the same were rectified, as and when the vehicle was reported for servicing to OP No.2. It has specifically denied that the Shaft Front Axle of the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect, which resulted in the accident of the vehicle on that account. It is further pleaded by the OPs that the vehicle in question had already done more than 30000 Kms before the accident took place on 13.8.2008 and it was then in prefect running condition till the accident took place. The OP has further emphasized that the warranty does not cover claims arising from the damages attributable to the impact of road accident and, therefore, the Complainant was rightly charged the sum of Rs.36,500/- for replacing certain significant parts and components of the accidental vehicle.  

iii]     In its reply/written statement, OP No.2 has more or less stated the same facts, as in the case of OP No.1. It has stated that the Complainant had given satisfaction reports on every date of his visit and there had been no complaint of that particular problem again. The allegations made with regard to the low average and under chassis loud noise were only an attempt to blackmail and harass OP No. 2 for extracting undue advantage from them. Moreover, the facts, as stated by the Complainant, were contradictory in the sense that on the one hand, he says that the wheel of the car came out of the Shaft at the time of accident and on the other hand, he states that the Shaft itself broke. Finally, when the car came to the Workshop of OP No. 2, the Complainant himself was absent. A day after the accident i.e. 14.8.2008, he intimated the insurance company about the accident and also filed a claim with them in respect of the accident of the car. As a matter of fact, the Complainant was not at all interested or serious in getting an early repair of the car, so much so that OP No. 2 had to write a letter, reminding him about the damaged car and it was only thereafter, that he sent money for repairs. Even, when the car was fully repaired, he did not care to receive back the car and took its delivery only on 23.09.2008, after several reminders for obtaining the driving license and registration certificate from him, which were to be verified by the Surveyor. Even on 23.9.2008, when the Complainant finally took delivery of the vehicle, he wrote on the gate pass that only the Fender work was pending, which clearly established that there was no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the vehicle and that the intention of the Complainant from the very beginning was to blackmail OP No.2.

iv]      OP No. 3, in its reply/ written statement has admitted the receipt of intimation of the accident on 14.8.2008 and that it had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss and to finalize the accident claim under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the claim was assessed at Rs.1,38,710/- and the Surveyor passed it for Rs.1,02,000/- which was payable to the Complainant. In any case, OP No. 3 is a proforma party in this case, as the Complainant has not prayed for any relief or compensation qua this OP.  

8]      On a very careful and detailed analysis of the entire case, it is quite clear that there is only one point of dispute between the parties i.e. the Complainant on one hand and OP No. 1 & 2 on the other. The point of dispute is that whereas the Complainant claims that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, especially in the Front Axle Shaft on the left side, due to which the left vehicle of the Car broke down on 13.8.2008, when the car was being driven from Panchkula to Chandigarh. The accident took place solely because of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle leading to consequential damage and loss. It has been asserted by the Complainant that the accident in question did not take place on account of any carelessness or negligence on his part and, therefore, OPs No. 1 and 2 are grossly deficient in service in selling him a car with an inherent manufacturing defect and on that ground he has asked for the replacement of the vehicle with a new defect free vehicle and also compensation and costs etc. In support of its contention, the Complainant has attached a number of photographs of the damaged vehicle, when it was brought to the workshop on 18.8.2008 and also an affidavit of one Sh. Satinder Singh, Sole Proprietor of M/s Vishwa Karma Autos, Manimajra, trying to prove that there is definitely a manufacturing defect in the car, not in just one part, but in several parts of the car, as well as in its general functioning and operation. These contentions of the Complainant have been vehemently denied by the OP, especially OPs No. 1 & 2, saying that the vehicle had by now already done more than 40000 Kms without any replacement of tyres, which has also been corroborated by the expert of the Complainant, which clearly shows that there is no inordinate wearing of the tyres and which also proves that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the car. In its rebuttal evidence, OP No. 2 states that on an inquiry, it was found that there was no such unit under the name and style of M/s Vishwa Karma Autos at Manimajra and no such person named as Satinder Singh had ever worked with M/s Premier Motor Garage as claimed by him in his affidavit and the said fact has been certified in writing by the Director, M/s Primer Motor Garage. Apart from what the OP No. 2 has to say in respect of the non-existence of the unit M/s Vishwa Karma Autos, as well as its sole Prop. Sh. Satinder Singh, it is also observed that assuming for a moment that such a unit exists with Sh. Satinder Singh as the Sole Proprietor, the technical qualification of Sh. Satinder Singh is only an ITI Diploma in Automobiles, for which he has not attached any certificate. Moreso, he is neither holding a 03 years Diploma course in Automobile Engineering from a recognized Polytechnic or a 04 years B.Tech. Degree Course in Automobile Engineering from any recognized Engineering Institution. Therefore, from any angle, Sh. Satinder Singh cannot be termed as an expert in Automobile Engineering. Further, there are a lot many contradictions and inconsistencies writ large in the statements made by him in the affidavit. As such, the affidavit given by Sh. Satinder Singh, in which it has been declared that the vehicle in question was suffering from an inherent manufacturing defect, cannot be relied upon.

9]      Further, even a cursory glance at the list of visits made by the Complainant to the workshop of the OP, complaints lodged and jobs complained against/ carried out there, shows that the Complainant is not at all clear as to the exact and specific defects in the vehicle e.g. on 17.3.2007, during his 1^st visit to the Workshop of OP No. 2, he alleges extra noise from the under portion (chassis) of the car. On 13.5.2007 and 1.7.2007, he makes a diametrically opposite complaint about the lower quantum of noise, which is just not understandable as to whether the vehicle was suffering from louder noise or lower noise under the chassis portion of the Car. Some of the other allegations made by the Complainant against the OPs in respect of his car are very minor in nature e.g. wheel balancing, wheel alignment, filling of nitrogen gas, door speaker and so on. All these complaints or the alleged defects cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as manufacturing defects. These things happen to any car anywhere in the World off and on during the normal running of the car and are always repairable/ can be rectified. These have nothing to do with the existence of any inherent manufacturing defect.

10]     The Complainant in support of his case has cited and endorsed certain authorities of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which are as under:-

a)  Manager, Premanchal Motors Pvt. Ltd. V/s Ramdas etc. Revision Petition No. 1018/2008 (NC)

b)  M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. M/s Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd., Revision Petition NO. 958 of 2007 (NC)

c)  M/s Scooter India Limited & Anr. Vs. Madhabananda Mohanty & Ors., Revision Petition No. 240 of 2002 (NC)

A close perusal of the above cited authorities shows that the ratio of these authorities is not relevant to the present complaint in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

11]     Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the entire case, it is quite clear that the Complainant has not been able to conclusively prove his case, especially in respect of proving a manufacturing defect in his Ford Fiesta Car and also any kind of possible nexus between the alleged defect in the car and the happening of a road accident on 13.8.2008. The clear inference from all this is that the car of the Complainant had met with an ordinary accident in the natural course of running of the car like any other accident in the case of any other car and not because of any inherent manufacturing defect. Further, it is also not made clear by the Complainant as to whether the left shaft of the front axle broke down or that the wheel came out of the shaft without breakage of the shaft itself. There is no expert report from a qualified Automobile Engineer or any recognized Automobile Association of India to that effect. So far as the minor defects in the car before the date of accident are concerned, it is on record that the OPs have always attended to these small complaints to the satisfaction of the Complainant, as borne out from the various job cards, including the gate pass after the Complainant took delivery of the car on completion of repairs after the accident. On the same lines, in regard to the allegation of the Complainant that he had to pay a sum of Rs.36,500/-, it is quite clear that since under the terms and conditions of warranty, an accident as well as resultant losses and damages are not covered, therefore, the Complainant was duty bound to pay for the repairs/replacements done by the OPs at his request either by himself or through the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. In the present case, a sum of Rs.36,500/- was paid by the Complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.1,02,000/- was to be paid by the Insurance Company (OP No.3) to the Complainant/OPs, as the case be. That settles the entire issues relating to repairs and replacement of certain parts and components of the vehicle as a result of accident, which took place on 13.8.2008.

12]     In view of the foregoings, it is our considered opinion that the present complaint has no merit, weight or substance and deserves rejection. We, therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

13]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After