| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 190 of 25-07-2018 Decided on : 15-05-2019 Gurjeet Singh aged about 40 years S/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh, R/o Village Shergarh Gian Singh, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib. …... Complainant Versus M.D/Competent Authority, Ford India Private Limited, Block-1, First Floor, RMZ Millenia Business Park 1431, Dr. M G K Road North, Veeranam, Peerguri, Chennai. A.B. Motors, Bhagat Ford through its Manager or Competent Authority, Opposite ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President Smt. Manisha Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. G S Mann, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for OP No. 1 Sh. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for OP No.2 O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Gurjeet Singh, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M.D. Ford India Private Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has purchased an ECO SPORT (trend) Car from A.B. Motors Bathinda on 7-10-2013. He is regularly getting his car checked at A.B. Motors Bathinda at the required and prescribed time. The first service was being free of costs only for checking of Car at 2350 Kms on 2-12-2013. The first paid service at 10148 Kms was on 25-4-2014, second paid service was on 24-7-2015 at 20286 Kms, third paid service was at 40249 Kms on 24-9-2016 and fourth service is due at 50000 Kms. It is alleged that at the time of 50,000 Kms service, maternal grandfather of complainant expired on 2-9-2017. He, being busy in his last rituals, got engine of his car checked from Bawa Motors, Sri Muktsar Sahib and came to know that car engine is running short of mobile oil. Gauze was not reaching the level of oil. He called Amritpal Singh employee of A.B. Motors and discussed the problem. He told that the guarantee and warranty of the car lasts for three years. Now it is not covered under guarantee. The complainant got the mobile oil filled in the engine from Bawa Motors and also got required services done on 19-9-2017. After being free, he approached A.B. Motors to get his car checked from agency. A.B. Motors checked car and filled 1.5 liter mobile oil on 8-12-2017 at 55918 Kms. It is alleged that car engine demanded mobile oil after three months and that too only after covering about 5000 Kms again. On 29-12-2017 3/4 ltrs of mobile oil was consumed by the engine within 20 days of filing it. The complainant talked to Manager of A.B. Motors, he told about four years warranty of the engine and 1,00,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The Manager called Ford, Head Quarter and told that half the engine requires to be replaced with new one. The company will bear 70% of the charges. 30% is to be borne by the complainant. Complainant showed protest to pay 30% as the problem had started within guarantee period, which was further delayed by the A.B. Motors, but complainant does not have option, so he paid 30% to AB Motors, of the expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000/- on 29-12-2017 under protest. Some parts of the engine were replaced by opposite party No. 2 without his consent. The opposite parties gave warranty of the engine for two year. Thereafter they extended the guarantee of the engine for two years after taking amount from the complainant. It is alleged that at the time of negotiation, opposite party No. 2 conveyed that Rs. 16000/- was his 30% share of expenses but when he received back his car, they gave him invoice of Rs. 26000/-which was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- on his protest and refusal to pay a sum of Rs. 26000/-. The employees of A.B. Motors tried to convince him by saying that few more parts of the engine were replaced whose cost was included in the bill. These parts were replaced without the knowledge and consent of complainant. It was also brought in his notice by some other customer of Ford that they are also finding problem with their cars, after covering 50,000 Kms. It shows that there was some mechanical or technical fault in the car engine. The company replaced whole engine within guarantee period. The opposite parties have given knowledge of this fact to complainant and written in the booklet of the company. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment etc., For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- in addition to refund, Rs. 20,048/- with interest, Rs. 40,000/- as cost and 10,000/- spent for rent of car etc., Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised preliminary objections that the allegations made by the complainant are false & frivolous. The complaint has been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and defame the opposite party. The complaint is an afterthought. The complainant is deliberately trying to distort the facts of the case to suit his own convenience in order to mislead this Forum. The complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. That the complainant has miserably failed to bring the complaint within the ambit of section 2 (1) (c) of the 'Act'. The complaint does not disclose any manufacturing defect as envisaged in section 2 (1) (I) or any 'deficiency in services' as defined in section 2 (1) (g) of the 'Act'. The problem in the vehicle has arisen due to negligence on the part of the complainant in not getting the car serviced for almost a span of one year and 3 months. It is solely due to the negligence and carelessness shown by the complainant in not getting the vehicle serviced periodically. The complainant took his car to be checked at Bawa Motors Sri Muktsar Sahib, which is neither authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1 nor impleaded party. The car was out of warranty period. It had lapsed on 07-10-2016. Therefore the complainant had to pay the repair charges. Once a vehicle is serviced from an unauthorized service station, the warranty cease to exist even otherwise. It further pleaded that keeping in view top most priority a customer satisfaction, parts of engine were replaced after undertaking to bear 70% of the actual cost of the parts. The complainant instead of appreciating the services/benefit extended by opposite party No. 1 filed this frivolous complaint only to harass and cause inconvenience to opposite party No. 1. It is further version of opposite party No. 1 that the relationship between opposite party No.1 & 2 is on principal to principal basis. Each party is responsible for its own action. The complainant never had any direct dealing with opposite party No. 1. It is only in case of any manufacturing defects the opposite party No.1 is required to meet its obligation as per the standard prescribed. As per warranty clause, the warranty of engine of the car is for two years and/or 1,00,000 kms whichever is earlier. The car was purchased by complainant on 07-10-2013. The warranty started on 07-10-2013 and lapsed on 07-10-2015. The complainant took extended warranty for one year which also expired on 07-10-2016. The averments with respect to warranty lasting for four years etc. are unfounded and without any basis. On 08.12.2017, the car was reported to opposite party No. 2. The technician thoroughly inspected the vehicle and changed the battery of the car and delivered the car to the complainant after ensuring his satisfaction of the services rendered by opposite party No. 2. Thereafter car reported to opposite party No. 2 on 19-12-2017 for the alleged problem that there was fast consumption of mobile oil by the engine of the car. Upon inspection by technicians of opposite party No. 2, it was apprised to complainant that overhauling of the engine had to be carried out and the same would be on chargeable basis, since the warranty in respect of the engine of the car had expired. Being customer-oriented company, the opposite party No. 1 as a goodwill gesture, agreed to bear 70% of the total cost incurred in engine repairs even post warranty period. The opposite party No. 2 proposed to the complainant that it would charge 30% of the actual cost to be incurred in changing the parts of the engine which would come up to Rs.20,000/- approximately. Thereafter, complainant without raising any demurrer got the car repaired to his full satisfaction. Before taking delivery, he also endorsed on the satisfaction note provided by opposite party No. 2. That no cause of action ever accrued in favor of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The last legal objection is that the complaint involves several disputed questions of fact and law, which would require the parties to give detailed oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the complaint, cannot be tried in summary manner. The complainant can be directed to approach civil court of competent jurisdiction. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has controverted all the material averments and in substance repeated the version as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above, the repetition of which is not considered necessary for the sake of brevity. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate reply has also corroborated the version of opposite party No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 20-7-2018 (Ex. C-15) photocopy of bills (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9), photocopy of warranty (Ex. C-10), photocopy of message sheet (Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-13) and photocopy of cost sheet (Ex. C-14). In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence photocopy of authorization letter (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of agreement (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of history report (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of satisfaction note (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of warranty (Ex. OP-1/5) and affidavit dated 4-9-2018 of Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg (Ex. OP-1/6). The opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 26-9-2018 of Abhitap Sahai (Ex. OP-2/1), photocopy of cost sheet (Ex. OP-2/2), photocopy of new vehicle warranty manual (Ex. OP-2/4), photocopy of online warranty card (Ex. OP-2/5), photocopy of invoice dated 27-12-2017 (Ex. OP-2/6), photocopy of repair order (Ex. OP-2/7), photocopy of satisfaction note (Ex. OP-2/8) and closed evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as pleaded in their respective pleadings. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite parties mainly denied to accept the claim of the complainant on the ground that warranty has already expired but the warranty terms and conditions also amounts to unfair trade practice. In warranty card (Ex. C-10), the opposite parties have mentioned warranty is for two years or 1,00,000 Kms. This Forum can take judicial notice of the fact that normally no vehicle covers 1,00,000 Kms within a period of two years. Therefore, the restriction of two years for covering warranty amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite parties cannot take shelter of this condition. Although, the complainant reported the problem after expiry of three years period but by that time the vehicle has covered only about 50,000 Kms and the engine requires overhauling. As such, the complainant is not to be denied relief only on the ground that warranty has expired. Hence, complaint be accepted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has pleaded that admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 7-10-2013. The original warranty was for two years upto coverage of 1,00,000 Kms. The complainant has never impugned this condition of the warranty card. Now, after expiry of warranty period, complainant cannot allege that warranty terms and conditions amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant has repeatedly mentioned that there was warranty of four years but this assertion is beyond the factual position. The warranty card categorically proves that warranty was for two year and complainant got it extended for one year. The total warranty expired on 7-10-2016. The defects mentioned by the complainant in September, 2017 which are certainly beyond the warranty period. Despite expiry of warranty, the opposite party No. 1 has borne 70% of the parts used for overhauling engine. As such, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased car in question from opposite party No. 2 on 7-10-2013. Of course, the complainant has pleaded that opposite parties gave warranty for engine for two years. This fact is also not disputed and find mentioned in the warranty card. The complainant has alleged that opposite parties extended warranty of the engine for two years after taking amount from the complainant. There is no documentary evidence to prove that opposite parties extended warranty for further two years. The opposite parties have admitted that complainant got warranty extended for another one year. Ex. OP-2/5 proves that warranty started from 7-10-2013 and its expiry date was 7-10-2015. The complainant got extended the warranty upto 7-10-2016 i.e. from the date of purchase. The complainant has not produced any other documentary evidence to prove that he got extended warranty upto 7-10-2017 i.e. for four years as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, it is to be accepted that warranty expired on 7-10-2016. The problems reported by the complainant in September, 2017, which is certainly after expiry of warranty period. It is also note disputed that opposite party No. 1 has borne 70% of the charges for replacement of parts to overhaul the engine. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, this complaint is without any merits and stands dismissed. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. Announced : 15-05-2019 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Manisha) Member
| |
