MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

05.08.2024

1. The brief facts of the case are that the OP1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question, OP2 is the distributor and OP3 is the authorized service centre of OP1.
2. Believing on the representation of OP1 & 2 in respect to the quality of the vehicle, unmatchable service offered by OPs to its customers and the attractive offers/schemes given by OPs complainant purchased Ford Figo under the scheme called Ford Midnight Sale on 28.12.2012 from OP2. As per the scheme the complainant is assured to give gift against the purchase of the vehicle of the question within three months of its purchase but only after the continuous persuasion the complainant received his gift after five months of the purchase.
3. It is further alleged by the complainant that right from the very beginning the vehicle in question never gave an average mileage of more than 14 to 15 per kilometer against the representation of OP that vehicle will gave average of 22-23  kms. It is further stated that there was various defects in the vehicle such as improper functioning of the engine, bad smell while the car was in motion, missing firing of engine, light glowing in the engine, improper functioning of pickup, delayed starting problem, underbody noise, over heating of the engine, stalling of the engine in the middle of the road and unbearable sound in the rare seat of the vehicle. It is alleged by the complainant that he approached OP3 and pointed out the entire defects in the vehicle in question however, the service engineer of OP3 stated that the engine of the vehicle is new one and will run smoothly after few days, after running few kilometers. Believing on advice of the service engineer the complainant did not bother for the defects and wait for its suo-moto rectification.
4. It is further alleged by the complainant that in the month of May, 2012 when the defects in the vehicle became beyond the control of the complainant’s son. The complainant sent email to OP1 &2 thereby narrating the entire defects in short. Although the OP1 & 2 acknowledge the receipt of the email but failed to redress/ rectify the defect in the vehicle. On 30.05.2013, the complainant visited the service centre of OP1 and pointed out the entire defect to the service engineer who after inspecting the vehicle changed the injector stage four in the vehicle and further assured the smooth running of the vehicle in question. However, after three days of the repairing , the vehicle again started showing the same problem and as such the complainant again lodged the complaint with OP and on his complaint the representative of OP3 asked him to visit the service centre on 25.06.2013. Accordingly, complainant visited the service centre of OP and at this juncture also again OP3 changed injector stage four and asked the complainant to left the vehicle for six to seven days for verifying the defect in it. It is alleged by the complainant that the entire conduct of the OP clearly established the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further alleged by the complainant that the representative of OP3 also assured the complainant that the issue in respect to the vehicle in question would be taken up with the higher authority and would be resolved soon. Despite bare version no steps were taken by the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.
5. Notice of the complaint was sent to all the OPs. Despite service neither OP2 & 3 appeared nor filed their respective WS as such OP2 & 3 were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.08.2014.
6. OP1 filed its WS wherein it denied any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that the subject vehicle used extensively by the complainant for almost about a year and for a mileage more than 15000 kms. It is further stated that OP1 is the manufacturer and share a principal to principal relationship with OP2. It is further stated that the complainat in its entire complaint referred several defects being there in the car in question, however, in the recent service dated 30.05.2013 no such a grievance was alleged, in fact satisfactory note was signed by the complainant himself. The mileage of the vehicle depends on the driving habit and vehicle handling capacity of the person. The vehicle was found to be performed up to mark when a joint mileage test was taken. It is further stated that the present complaint is nothing but the abuse of the process of law, hence, be dismissed with cost.
7. Rejoinder to the WS of OP1 filed thereby denying the averments made in the written statement.  Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint. He has placed on record the copy of invoice, copy of letter addressed to OP1, copy of emails exchanged between the parties, copy of service invoices in support of his contention.
8. Sh. Tapos Kumar Moitra authorized signatory of  OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP. OP1 has placed on record copy of vehicle repair history as well as copy of standard provisions of BSSA in support of its contention.
9. Both the parties filed their written arguments. During the pendency of the present complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit mentioning the current status of the vehicle in question along with photographs.
10. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Swapnil Jain and Sh. Saurabh Mishra counsel for OP1. Despite opportunity no one came forward on behalf of OP2 & 3 to address the arguments and have perused the record.
11. The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint is as to whether the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint.
12. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP2 on 29.12.2012. He has placed on record the copies of the emails dated 08.05.2013, 09.05.2013, 29.05.2013, 31.05.2013, 25.06.2013 and 15.07.2013. He has also placed on record the service retain invoice dated 16.05.2013, 20.05.2013, 25.06.2013 in which it is clearly mentioned that the OP replaced the injector on 20.05.2013 and thereafter on 25.06.2013 of the vehicle in question due to repeated problem/defects in the vehicle. The copy of the service history placed on record by the complainant as well as by OP1 clearly shows that the car is facing the alleged problem due to defective injector and the same has been replaced by OP twice. Firstly, on 20.05.2013 and secondly on 25.06.2013.
13.  Admittedly, the vehicle in question has covered the mileage of 87524 kms till today.  If, the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect then it would not be possible for the vehicle in question to cover the mileage of 87524 kms. Moreover, the photographs of the vehicle placed on record by the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint itself proved that the vehicle was not in a scrap condition as alleged during the course of the arguments. However, the perusal of the entire pleadings and record clearly established that within four months of the purchase the injector of the vehicle in question was replaced twice, hence, the complainant has to suffer a lot due to non functioning of the vehicle in question but admittedly after replacement of the injector on 25.06.2013 no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to establish that the alleged defect continues in the vehicle till today and the vehicle is not in the road worthy condition.
14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that   the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 4,98,000/- for the purchase of the vehicle in question in order to enjoy its fruits in the journey but during the period of 5 months, vehicle  injector was replaced twice. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that the complainant suffered pain and mental agony due to defective injector and as such he is entitled for compensation on this count. We therefore direct OP1 being the manufacture as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by her.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation cost.

15. OP1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP1 is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.
16. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   06.08.2024.

Sanjay Kumar                       Nipur Chandna                               Rajesh       

President                                     Member                                       Member