Complainant Dr.Mohit Mahajan vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- for financial as well as physical agony. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for taxi bills paid by him alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Volswagen Polo Diesel Car in the month of March bearing registration no.PB-35P 3800 for his personal use as well as professional life more convenient, however, he is highly disappointed by the fact that the reason for which he purchased the car is not fulfilled as one by one there occurred several technical problem in the above said car but the opposite party did not cooperate him to resolve all these problems. The tyres of the car burnt out only after the completion of 7000 Kms only and the car was well within the warranty period. He informed the opposite party about this damage but they denied to replace the tyres and he has to purchase new set of tyres from his own pocket by paying Rs.25,000/-. He has further pleaded that only after the drive of 27000 Kms, he had to change the brake pads of the car which was the result of technical deficiency of the car. After that to maintain the working condition of car he got the second service of car after the completion of its 30000 Kms. On 30.10.2013 his car again got an accident in which both the rear side got hit and also sump damage was there but it was height of unprofessional behavior of the opposite party that they did unnecessary delay in repairing the damaged car due to non availability of the required part with the workshop. Because of the delay in servicing of his car he faced huge problem and requested the opposite party for loaner car as the delay was on their part, however, the opposite party denied for it. Other problems were also occurred in the abovesaid car but the opposite party did not satisfy him. The said act of the opposite party clearly shows that the opposite party deliberately and malafidely acted in a manner which caused huge losses to him. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is vague and lacks material particulars and does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite party and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant purchased a Diesel Car polo 1.2b Trandline Candy White from the opposite party no.1 on 20.03.2012 vide invoice no.95 dated 28.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.5,78,837/-. The vehicle was delivered on the same day to the complainant with all the necessary documents after the complete satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant visited the workshop alongwith vehicle for repairs on different dates i.e. on 25.09.2012, 19.1.2013, 31.7.2013, 24.08.2013 and 4.10.2013 and refused for the wheel alignments/balancing. It was further submitted that the vehicle again was badly damaged due to accident and it took in the workshop for the accidental repair on 30.10.2013. The front and rear bumpers were badly damaged, wheel house front from left side was damaged, the oil sump was also damaged. The complainant was conveyed by the opposite party that huge work of body was involved regarding denting, painting, repair and spare of vehicle and more time is required for repair. The vehicle was got inspected by the surveyor deputed by the insurance company. The body shop work was started after the visit and inspection of surveyor and complete work of the vehicle was got done with complete satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle was got delivered to the complainant on 12.11.2013. The complainant again visited to the opposite parties number of times and on occasions the desired work was done for the satisfaction of the complainant, although there was no problem as complained by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant purchased a Volkswagen polo Diesel Car from the opposite party. It was further submitted that there has no delay on the part of the opposite party in conducting repair of the car. The car was substantially damaged as a result of accident and all the parts are not available at all the times and generally the parts are procured from the Regional Office of the company at Gurgaon. The car is stated to have met an accident on 30.10.2013 and it was delivered after repair on 12.11.2013 to the complete satisfaction of the complainant. There are several factors involved in the repair. The insured vehicle is to be inspected by the surveyor and in this case the repair was started only after the inspection of the surveyor and getting on his signal to start the work. The oil sump was damaged in the accident, which part is rearly damaged and was requisitioned from Gurgaon. The 12 days were not much time for replacement of parts, denting and painting of a car which sufficient damaged in accident. It was further submitted that emergency light of the car was reported to be blinking and the same is not a manufacturing defect. It is due to normal wear and tear and rough handling of the car. When the vehicle was brought on 10.12.2014 the problem was rectified and the complainant took the vehicle after signing the satisfaction note and GFF test was performed without any charges. Although the problem was over come by repair, still the opposite party replaced an order for the part EGR and on receiving the part it was changed on 29.12.2014 within 3 hours and there is a satisfaction note in this respect. EGR worth Rs.43,072.45 was changed by the opposite party free of costs. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written version taking the preliminary objections that no cause of action against the opposite party no.2 as there is no deficiency in service on their part and the Hon’ble Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint in as much as the opposite party no.2 is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. On merits, it was submitted that opposite party no.2 is not the manufacturer of the said vehicle. It was further submitted that though the purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant is a part of record and warrants no reply from this opposite party no.2. However, the use of the said vehicle by the complainant is not known and also the complainant in the complaint has stated that he bought the said vehicle for professional usage, therefore, the complainant must be put to strict proof about the usage of the said vehicle. The opposite party no.2 is not responsible for providing the warranty of the tyres and the same is provided by the respective tyre manufacturers. The warranty pertaining to tyres is explicitly excluded from the purview of warranty provided by the opposite party no.2. Thus, the complainant should have taken his grievances to the tyre manufacturer. It was next submitted that the instance quoted by the complainant was caused due poor quality of fuel used over the period of two years and hence the same was repaired. The opposite party no.2 has never been deficiency towards the complainant and the instances pointed out by the complainant in the present complaint do not fall under the category of manufacturing or technical defect hence at no point of time the intervention from the opposite party no.1 was required since there was no repair under warranty was required. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1/A along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, Col.Anirudh Uttam General Manager of the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith the other documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP-1/26 including Ex.OP-1/13A and Ex.OP-1/19A and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harshavarhdan Jogdand Senior Manager of opposite party no.2 Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly produced by the litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially drawn for those ignored to be produced; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the two sides. We find that the complainant had purchased Volkswagon Make Polo Diesel 1.2L Trendline Candy White Model Car from the opposite party # 1 vendor on 20.03.2012 (Ex.OP1/1) who effected its delivery on the same day. Somehow, the complainant being upset with the car’s un-satisfactory performance and the alleged poor service rendered by the OP1 vendor workshop has filed the present complaint by duly enjoining the OP2 marketing, sales & service agents (of the manufacturers) as co-respondents. Amongst others, two of the main grievances of the complainant were ‘wearing-out’ of the car’s tyres at 7000 kms only and damaged Brake Pads at 27000 kms. Somehow, the complainant has not been able to link these ‘damages’ with any inherent manufacturing defects whereas the OP vendor workshop has alleged ‘faulty’ wheel-alignment attempted at a local unauthorized workshop coupled with ill-driving (repeated braking) as its root causes. We find both the parties collectively contributing to the above indicated/‘early’ appeared mal-functions in the car. The complainant was not desired to get ‘wheel-alignment’ at some local un-authorized workshop whereas the OP1 workshop should have ensured ‘perfect’ wheel balancing before ‘delivery’ of the new car. The worn-out Brake Pads at 27000 kms though ‘uncommon’ do not fall under ‘rare & unusual’ category in fast–driven modern cars and warrant for replacement as the last solution. Further, we find that the car twice met with ‘road-side’ accidents on 24.08.2013 & 30.10.2013 and the OP workshop has produced documents evidencing repairs etc to the complainant’s satisfaction. We are of the firm opinion that the accidental cars can never match ‘fresh’ (new) cars in performance especially to the taste of customers pursuing ‘perfection’ in standards and as such the OP vendor workshop could not cater at its optimum to the ‘service’ needs of the complainant. The OP vendor has suo-moto replaced the EGR (costing Rs. 43,072/-) of the car in question as per the manufactures policy throughout the Globe and not as a special gesture to the present complainant who, we feel, definitely deserved a more efficient and customer-friendly service.
9. Lastly, in the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed of by directing the OP vendor to approach the complainant to have the present status (running condition) of the car in question and remove the petty defects (irritants) free of cost as a gesture of good will and also quote his most competitive rates for removal of ‘major’ defects, if any, and if agreed upon by the doctor complainant.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri) President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 18, 2016. Member.
*MK*
