Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/262

Amardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Daljeet Singh Adv.

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:262 dated 22.10.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 15.03.2023.

Sh. Amardeep Singh, aged about 48 years son of Hoshiar Singh, Resident of Village Manakwal, P.O. Gill, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu-603204, Tamil Nadu, India through its M.D./Director.
2.  Ford India Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at 3^rd Floor, Building No.10, C, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-II, Sector 24, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 through Regional Manager/Head.
3. A.B. Motors Private Limited, 658, Industrial Area-A, Sherpur Byepass, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Daljeet Singh, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Proceedings against OP2 already dismissed as                                           withdrawn vide order dated 15.07.2021.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10GQ-0280 and its engine was having starting problem so he brought the vehicle to opposite party No.3 who is dealer of opposite party No.1 and 2 and informed regarding the problem of starting of its engine. Opposite party No.3, after diagnosing the vehicle suggested the complainant to get his engine overhauled, for which they replace the old spare parts of the engine of the complainant with the new spare parts duly manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 to which the complainant agreed and hired the services of opposite party No.3. The complainant got his vehicle engine overhauled on 16.01.2018 and at that time the vehicle was driven 149219KM and opposite party No.3 had raised the bill of Rs.56,473/-, which was duly paid by the complainant. The complainant submitted that in the month of February, 2018 again the vehicle started giving trouble in the engine i.e. unusual engine voice and leakage of the engine oil, the complaint was duly lodged with opposite party No.3 and as per their demand, the complainant brought his vehicle to opposite party No.3 on 27.02.2018 after driving the vehicle for 150082KM and informed regarding the above said trouble in the engine. Opposite party No.3 after giving the services had raised a bill of Rs.17,323/-, which was duly paid by the complainant but in the month of March 2018, the vehicle started giving same trouble in the engine upon which he lodged the complaint with opposite party No.3 who again asked the complainant to bring the vehicle on 30.03.2018 and at that time the meter reading of the vehicle was 155478KM. The complainant told opposite party No.3 that he is not confident to take the vehicle on a long route as the engine of the vehicle is not performing as per their norms and he was scared that it could stop in between any time. Opposite party No.3 after claiming to have been repaired the vehicle and had also raised a bill of Rs.1537.50/- which was duly paid by the complainant without informing that which spare part already replaced by them at the time of overhauling as the vehicle is not performing properly and as per their commitment, the engine of the vehicle was not performing accordingly. Again in the month of April, 2018, the vehicle was having the same trouble i.e. unusual voice and leakage of engine oil, as such again the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.3 as per their demand on the complaint of the complainant on 11.04.2018 and at that time the meter reading of the vehicle was 156014KM. After so called diagnose or getting the vehicle roadworthy for the previous complaint of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 had charged Rs.2213/- from the complainant and further assured that now the vehicle would perform in a satisfactory manner. After few days again the vehicle started giving same trouble, then on 18.04.2018 after driving the vehicle 157547KM was brought to opposite party No.3. After diagnosing the same, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that all the promises given by opposite party No.3 regarding their services and spare parts manufactured and provided by opposite party No.1 to 3, in the month of July, 2018 the vehicle started giving same trouble in the engine. Again the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.3 on 09.07.2018 and at that time the meter reading of the vehicle was 158547KM. After conducting any repair or anything by opposite party No.3, they raised a bill of Rs.3714.54/- which was duly paid by the complainant but they failed to diagnose the unusual voice in the engine and leaking in the engine oil, as again in the month of August, 2018 the vehicle started giving same trouble in the engine. Then the complainant brought the vehicle to opposite party No.3 on 02.08.2018 with the meter reading 159547KM and as usual, the opposite party No.3 gave guarantee on the spare parts duly manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 by raising a bill of Rs.8500/- which was duly paid by the complainant without giving any explanation to the complainant that why the replaced spare parts at the time of overhauling were not performing accordingly and why again and again the complainant is suffering from the same problem but as usually they assured the complainant that now they had properly diagnosed the vehicle and he would not suffer any such trouble in future, although the complainant had assured them that the vehicle is not roadworthy and he is not confident to drive it on a long route or local.

                   The complainant further submitted that in the month of September, 2018, the vehicle started giving same trouble in the engine, as the complainant used to drive the vehicle for 5 to 7 KM to check the road worthiness of the vehicle to gain the confidence to get the vehicle to be driven local, as such the complainant brought the vehicle to opposite party No.3 on 07.09.2018 with the meter reading 159599KM but opposite party No.3 again raised a bill of Rs.3690/- for their services as usual without giving any convincing reply to the complainant regarding non performing of the engine after overhauling. Again after few days, the vehicle started giving same trouble in the engine, as such again the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.3 on 29.09.2018 with meter reading 160403KM and opposite party No.3 raised a bill of Rs.500/- which was duly paid by the complainant. After seeing the poor performance of the spare parts duly replaced by opposite party No.3 of opposite party No.1 and 2 and lack of technical knowledge to get the vehicle repaired and made it roadworthy of opposite party No.3, the complainant kept on retaining the vehicle and usually drive the same after topping up the engine oil if he ever thought to drive the same and had never taken the vehicle for any long route travel. In the month of December, 2019 engine of the vehicle stopped starting, as such the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.3 on 03.12.2018 by towing the same by the private vehicle with the meter reading 163527KM. Opposite party No.3 as per its previous conduct without giving any excuse, started pretending that they had diagnose the problem of the engine of the vehicle and same would not be going to trouble the complainant and had raised a bill of Rs.3274.72/- but again the engine of the vehicle was having same trouble of engine oil leakage and engine voice and not self starting of engine after driving for 2KM after taking the delivery of the vehicle and the complainant had to bring the vehicle on 04.12.2018 to opposite party No.3 who raised a bill of Rs.4857/-. The complainant further averred that even after that the vehicle was not performing properly but the complainant felt ashamed to raise a complaint again and again, as the opposite party No.2 was neither repairing the vehicle and getting it roadworthy for the complainant nor giving any satisfactory reply to the complainant, as such the complainant kept the vehicle without having any confidence to drive the same and to take the vehicle on long route and whenever the complainant used to drive the vehicle, had topped up the engine oil, so that he could fulfill the leakage of engine oil of the vehicle as opposite party No.3 was unable to stop the leakage after the overhauling of the vehicle and lost of complaint raised by the complainant. During that time, the complainant had only driven the vehicle for few kilometer but in the month of December 2019 when the engine of the vehicle stopped starting, then the complainant brought his vehicle on 17.12.2019 to the opposite party No.3 with the meter reading 172027KM, then the officials of opposite party No.3 insisted that now the engine of the vehicle is not in working condition and it required to be overhauled and the complainant had to pay the entire amount of the replacement of the spare parts and the services charges of overhauling. The complainant felt cheated, as he had already paid around Rs.1,02,000/- and spare around two years with the defected vehicle, which was not roadworthy and had paid several unnecessary amounts raised by the opposite party No.3 for getting the vehicle roadworthy but the complainant had only able to drive the vehicle only for 22808KM most of it being used for bring the vehicle to the opposite party No.3 for his complaint as well as the vehicle driven by the opposite party No.3 during they were having the vehicle in their possession to assure and prove the complainant that vehicle had became roadworthy, although the vehicle was standing in a stationery condition at his residence most of the time. The complainant raised the protest with the officials of opposite party No.3 namely Amit Sindhi, D.G.M. of opposite party No.3 regarding the above said poor services and spare parts provided by the opposite parties, who admitted his fault that although the spare parts were replaced as per the guarantee/warranty given by opposite party No.1 and 2 and they had to perform accordingly but as per the poor services tendered by opposite party No.3, the vehicle could not perform and further offered 50% discount on re-overhauling of the vehicle of the complainant, which was not acceptable to the complainant, nor he was interested in the said discount at present also. The complainant sent a detailed email to Anurag Mehrotra M.D. of opposite party No.1 and 2 and customer care. After the telephonic conversation with Mr. Anurag Mehrotra and customer care and email, on their insistence, the complainant brought his vehicle to the premises of opposite party No.3, so that they could diagnose the complaints of the complainant regarding the poor/non performance of the replaced spare parts. Since then the vehicle is lying there, neither the opposite parties have made the said vehicle roadworthy of already replaced spare parts nor they had changed the spare parts with new one or returned the amount which they had charged from the complainant for overhauling and again and again replacing the spare parts. Inspite of changing the spare parts of the engine of Ford make, the performance of those spare parts and the service tendered by the company officials was very poor and the complainant is unable to enjoy the comfort of the vehicle even after spending lots of money and time. Ffter receiving the email of the complainant, Mr. Anurag Mehrotra and customer care officials had responded to the complainant and further requested the complainant to take up his matter with the officials of opposite party No.3 namely Rajan, although the complainant had approached him two times and each and every time, he had informed the complainant that the vehicle was not working properly due to the poor performance of the replaced spare parts duly manufactured by the opposite party s No.1 and 2 and he portrayed the correct picture to the officials/technical staff of opposite party s No.1 and 2 and after doing so, he will inform the complainant after consulting with Rohit Behal, Regional Sales Manager within 2 days and he will redress problem of the complainant. The complainant submitted that he had waited for two weeks and also had several time telephonic conversation with the officials of opposite party No.3 namely Rajan but he has not given any satisfaction reply. His vehicle was lying at the premises of opposite party No.3 since 09.07.2020 but the opposite parties had not given any satisfactory reply to the complainant nor repairing the vehicle and also in alternative not providing any vehicle to the complainant for temporary purpose. The opposite parties had charged Rs.1,02,000/- from the complainant for getting repaired his vehicle's engine and made the vehicle roadworthy in future but instead of replacing the correct spare parts, so that the vehicle could became roadworthy, they had replaced such spare parts which could not properly diagnose the starting trouble of the engine, due to which the complainant had suffered a lot and had complained to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 regarding their poor performance of their replaced spare parts but instead of resolving the grievance of the complainant, they had refused to compensate the complainant and made his vehicle roadworthy, such conduct of the opposite parties are not only arbitrary but of unfair trade practices, which has caused mental as well as physical pain and agony to the complainant and the luxury of traveling on his own vehicle was also been snatched by the opposite parties. The complainant also issued a legal notice dated 23.09.2020 through registered post through his counsel Sh. Daljeet Singh, Advocate but no response was received from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.1,02,000/- charged for overhauling of the vehicle and repair of the vehicle and also to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.1 through registered post but none turned up for opposite party No.1 despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.03.2021. However, the proceedings as against opposite party No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.07.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of suppression of material facts, misusing of provisions of Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 alleged that it was not guilty of any deficiency in services. Moreover, the complainant has not disclosed the entire case history of his vehicle as he used to get his vehicle repaired, serviced by unauthorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and 2 who were not having proper equipments and spare parts, due to which the engine of the vehicle was damaged as they had not taken the proper care as per the norms of opposite party No.1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 further alleged that it had properly diagnosed the vehicle as per the norms of opposite party No.1 and 2 by replacing new spare parts with the old problem giving spare parts of vehicle of the complainant but the spare parts manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 had not performed as per the expectations of the complainant and further caused damage to the engine of the vehicle. Now the entire engine has to be replaced for the proper performance of the vehicle and for which opposite party No.3 had no role to play. Opposite party No.3 further alleged that even if opposite party No.1 and 2 gave the warranty of their replaced spare parts of the vehicle of the complainant, it has no objection to replace the same.

                   On merits, opposite party No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.3 alleged that it was the complainant who was not acting as per the advise of opposite party No.3 for not replacing the engine although the vehicle of the complainant is lying there and occupying the spare of it. Opposite party No.3 denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 are the copies of emails, Ex. C6 are the copies of receipts of repair of the vehicle, Ex. C7 is the legal notice dated 23.09.2020, Ex. C9 to Ex. C11 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA3 of Sh. Jasbir Singh, Manager of opposite party No.3 along with documents Ex. RA3/1  are the copy of the emails consisting of 11 pages and closed the evidence.

6.                During the course of pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application under Section 38(c) of the Consumer Protection Act for appointing some mechanical expert to determine and assess as to which spare parts of the vehicle in question are defective and requirement replacement. Finally, Er. Chander Shekhar son of Kukami Ram, Manager Audi, Ludhiana was appointed as expert vide order dated 03.11.2022 who submitted his affidavit Ex. CB on 12.12.2020 along with expert opinion Ex. C12.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

8.                 The complainant, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10GQ-0280 experienced starting problem in the engine of the vehicle  and approached opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 after diagnosing the defect in the vehicle suggested that old spare parts of the engine are required to be replaced with new spare parts duly manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2. Consequently, on 16.01.2018, the engine of the vehicle was overhauled and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.56,473/- and at that time, the vehicle had covered 142919 KM. Even after overhauling and replacing the old parts with new parts, the malfunctioning of the engine of the vehicle continued. The complainant repeatedly stayed in touch with the opposite parties and continued to approach opposite party No.3 who had been providing paid repair and services to the complainant. In all, the complainant visited 11 times with opposite party No.3 from 16.01.2018 till 17.12.2019 and spent substantial amount of Rs.1,02,000/- on the repair of the engine.

8.                Opposite party No.3 took specific stand that he has provided best services to the complainant by replacing the old parts with the genuine new parts manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2 which have not performed to the expectations.

9.                During the course of proceedings, Engineer Chander Shekhat was finally appointed as an expert on 03.11.2022. He inspected the vehicle on 09.12.2022 at about 01.00 PM at the workshop of opposite party No.3 in the presence of the complainant and representative of the contesting opposite party. During the course of inspection, the vehicle was made functional for the purpose of inspection. The expert after giving observation opined that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the replaced spare parts due to which the engine of the vehicle had damaged and the same is required to be replaced with new engine assembly. He concluded that changing of engine assembly is required. None of the parties had raised any objection with regard to the observation and conclusion of the expert. It is apparent that opposite party No.3 has affected the repairs and services as and when the complainant approached it. The old parts were replaced with the genuine new parts manufactured by opposite party No.1 and 2. The engine of the vehicle was required to function smoothly after replacement of the new parts but as opined by the expert, there being an inherent manufacturing defect in the replaced new spare parts, the trouble persisted. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and as such, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the engine assembly of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine assembly along with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 to replace the engine assembly of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine assembly free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

Amandeep Singh Vs Ford India Pvt. Ltd.                      CC/20/262

Present:       Sh. Daljeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Proceedings against OP2 already dismissed as withdrawn vide                           order dated 15.07.2021.

                   Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate for OP3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 to replace the engine assembly of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine assembly free of costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Opposite party No.1 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.