Haryana

Karnal

CC/382/2016

Rajpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Motors India Pvt. Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Kaneja

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.382 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 15.12.2016

                                                         Date of decision:14.03.2018

 

Rajpal son of Shri Moti Ram resident of VPO Siral Tehsil Kaithal District Kaithal now resident of House no.40 part III New Police Line Kaithal Road, Karnal.

                                                                …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. General Motors India Pvt. Limited Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Holol-389351 District Panchmha, Gujrat, India Phone 912676221000.

2. M/s Lekh Raj Motors Pvt. Limited an authorized Chvrolet dealer Showroom and workshop N.H. 65, Ambala Road, Kaithal-136027 (Hr.) Mobile: 9992-222-900. Through its General Manager.

3. M/s Aryaman Automobiles 117/6, K.M. Miles Stone G.T. Road, Karnal (Hr.) Mobile 09996116985.

                                         

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

              Ms. Veena Rani……..Member

              Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

               

 

 Present  Shri Raj Kumar Kanojia Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Amish Goel Advocate for opposite party no.1.

               OP no.2 given up.

               Shri Ramphal Narwal Advocate for OP no.3.

 

ORDER:                    

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had purchased a car Beat of Chevrolet Company from OP no.2, which was manufactured by OP no.1 and serviced by OP no.3. The said vehicle got registered by the Licensing Authority, Kaithal vide registration no.HR-08R-7231. On 6.1.2014 the vehicle was got check up vide job card no.414 from OP no.3. Again on 2.5.2014 the abovesaid car was got repair from OP no.2 vide job no.000383 and jopb of AIR & AC Filter check, wheel alignment checked and paid a sum of Rs.236/- . On 29.05.2014 the accidental job i.e. only window was repaired which was due to negligence of a truck driver and dent of window was done and charged Rs.8899/- vide bill no.000332. Service of the vehicle was got done and complainant paid Rs.1500/-On 9.8.2014 the service of the vehicle was got done and charged service bill of Rs.5240/-. On 3.9.2014 the pump ASM F INJN has developed some fault in it the same was replaced with a new one vide part no.J55578074 which was of Rs.28719/- and running repair was done Fuel Injection Pump Replacement vide part no.4023910 labour and job work done within warrantee period and nothing was charged. Again on 13.09.2014 there was some fault in the Fuel Injection Pump which was replaced with cost and this time the OP no.3 had charged Rs.1668/- for the same at mileage 17335 was issued. Further on 5.12.2014 paid service was got done on mileage 24199 by the complainant and paid a sum of Rs.2222/- vide bill no.001589 from OP no.3. The complainant even got the services before time but even than the vehicle is not running smoothly. On 22.01.2015 running repair and battery pos cable taping was done and charged Rs.300/- at mileage. The vehicle starting giving problem on 13.08.2016 while the complainant was coming on his duty. The complainant is posted as ASI in Police Department and working as CCTNS Karnal. There is manufacturing defect in the car as such it is not cured by the engineers of the OPs. The complainant had given the said car to OP no.3 for its repair on 13.08.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. and handed over to the complainant on 24.08.2016 vide job no.0017678 and charged Rs.14956/- whereas the car is repaired within the warrantee period. The OP no.3 changed Fuelfilter Replacement with part no.4026770 and charged Rs.13500/- Fuel Filter And Fip And Injector Repair Job Done, this part which was replaced by OP no.3 on 3.9.2014 and they have charged Rs.14956/- when the complainant requested to OP no.3 not to charge the amount as the vehicle is within warrantee period. The OP no.3 charged Rs.14956/- illegally and arbitrarily whereas there is manufacturing defect in the car which is again and again has become disordered whereas the same part was replaced on 3.9.2014 and the same fault again developed on 13.8.2016. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant is an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Department, therefore, by using his influence he wanted to have some undue benefits. The vehicle in question on 23.8.2016 had crossed the mileage of 76623 Kms, in short span of two years and eight months which shows that the vehicle in question was running more than 30,000 Kms in a year, which was not possible if the vehicle in question would have some manufacturing defect. On 27.05.2014 at the mileage of 10,360 kms the vehicle in question was subjected to accidental job repair and the moment the vehicle in question met with an accident the warranty close the vehicle in question was blown, therefore, after the accident, the vehicle cannot be stated to be covered under warranty. It is further submitted that the vehicle history shows that the vehicle in question had no problem and whatsoever minor problem like brake-booster or fuel injector, all those small wear and tear problems were handled under warranty, without charging a single penny from the complainant. It is further submitted that without leading any expert evidence and without examining any expert body regarding the manufacturing defect, it cannot be stated that, the vehicle in question is having some manufacturing defect. Specifically in case, when the vehicle in question has crossed 76623 kilometers in a short span of two years and 8 months. It is further submitted that Rs.28719/- were never charged from the complainant by OP no.1. The amount of Rs.14,956/- was charged by OP no.3 on 13.08.2011, when the vehicle in question had reported with a problem i.e. fuel filter chocked, which was result of use of adulterated fuel, therefore,  injector repair work was carried out on paid basis, as the warranty cover was blow, when the complainant used the adulterated fuel. Therefore, the fuel filter was also changed due to that reason only and the same cannot be covered under warranty. It is further submitted that the complainant never charged for anything which is covered under warranty. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant, vide his statement dated 9.3.2017.

4.             OP no.3 filed its separate written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to concealment of true and material facts from this Forum; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file and maintain the present complaint; maintainability and cause of action. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had purchased the car from Kaithal i.e. OP no.2. The OP no.3 has given the services to the complainant. The diesel which was put into the car of the complainant was a very low quality diesel due to which the fuel injector was chocked. The complainant came to the office/workshop of the OP no.3 on several times and gave good services to the complainant every time including free services and paid services. The allegations regarding the manufacturing defect in the car is totally false and baseless. It is further submitted that the OP no.3 has received the payment from the complainant for the work and spare parts which has been changed in the vehicle. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 23.08.2017.

6.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitin Chugh Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Vishal Chopra Ex.OP3/A and documents Ex.Ox and Ex.Oy and Ex.O1 and closed their evidence on 19.01.2018 and 7.12.2017 respectively.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             From the pleading of the case, it is clear that there is no dispute that the complainant has purchased a car Beat of Chevrolet Company bearing registration no.HR-08R-7231 from OP no.2, manufactured by OP no.1 and serviced by OP no.3.

9.             The complainant alleged that he got the vehicle checked up on 6.1.2014 vide Ex.C4 and again on 2.5.2014 vide Ex.C5 from OP no.3. Thereafter, on 29.5.2014 the car was repaired as the same was met with an accident. On 10.06.2014 and 9.8.2014 the car was got serviced and the complainant paid Rs.1500/- vide receipt Ex.C7 and Rs.5240/-, vide receipt Ex.C8 respectively. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 3.9.2014 the pump ASM F INJN has developed some fault and the same was replaced with a new one part which was of Rs.28719/-. It is further alleged that again on 13.09.2014 some fault developed in the Fuel Injection Pump which was replaced without cost and this time the OP no.3 had charged Rs.1668/-, vide receipt Ex.C10. On 5.12.2014 and 22.01.2015 also the complainant got car serviced. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2016 the car developed starting problem in the way when the complainant was going to his office and the complainant left the car on the way and then attended his office where he reached late and due to late coming he was served by the officers with a show cause notice. It is further alleged by the complainant that the car is having manufacturing defect which could not be cured by the OPs. On 13.08.2016 it took 11 days in repairing the car and the OP has handed over the car to the complainant on 24.08.2016 and charged Rs.14956/-. It is further alleged that the complainant sent email to the OP no.3 that the OPs have charged Rs.14956/- illegally and arbitrarily whereas the car was within warranty period.

 10.          On the other hand, the OP no.1 contended that the complainant is an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Department and by using his influence he wanted to have some undue benefits. It is further contended that on 23.8.2016 the vehicle in question had crossed the mileage of 76623 Kms, in short span of two years and eight months which shows that the vehicle in question was running more than 30,000 Kms in a year. If the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect, then it was not possible to cross a such long distance. It is further contended that no expert report has been placed by the complainant on the file to prove that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. It is further contended that on 27.5.2014 at the mileage of 10360 Kms, vehicle was subjected to accidental job repair and the moment the vehicle in question met with an accident, the warranty of the vehicle in question was blown, therefore, after the accident, the vehicle cannot be stated to be covered under warranty. It is further contended that the vehicle in question has no problem and the minor problem like brake-booster or fuel injector, all those small wear and tear problems were handled under warranty, without charging a single penny from the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant had never approached the OP no.1 with his grievances. It is further contended that Rs.28719/- were never charged from the complainant as alleged and the amount of Rs.14956/- was charged by the OP no.3 as the vehicle was reported with a problem in fuel filter chocked, which was the result of adulterated fuel. Therefore, injector repair work was carried out on paid basis as the warranty cover was blown, when the complainant used the adulterated fuel.

11.           The OP no.3 contended that the diesel used in car of the complainant was a low quality diesel due to which the fuel injector was chocked. It is further contended that the complainant came several times to the workshop of OP no.3 and the OP no.3 gave good services to the complainant every time including free services and paid services. There was no manufacturing defect in the car.

12.           From the submissions of the parties two question arises that (i) Whether the vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect? and (ii) Whether the  OP no.3 was right or wrong in charging the amount of Rs.14956/-?

13.           The onus to prove that the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect was upon the complainant. The complainant has not produced any report from the expert vide which it can be proved that the vehicle in question was having a manufacturing defect.  The complainant has not produced any other evidence vide which it can be proved that the vehicle in question was having a manufacturing defect. Without the report of the expert or any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that the vehicle in question was having a manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question was having a manufacturing defect.

14.           The fact of charging Rs.14,956/- on 24.08.2016 for running repair and fuel filter replacement of the car has been admitted by the OPs. The OPs contended that the same was charged as the complainant used the adulterated/low quality diesel and due to which the fuel injector was chocked and the same cannot be covered under warranty because the warranty cover was blown when the complainant used the adulterated fuel. This fact has been mentioned by the OPs in their reply only. The OPs have neither examined any expert/mechanic who can prove that the diesel used by the complainant was adulterated nor produced the report of any mechanic in this regard. Moreover, the complainant purchased the diesel from the petrol pump so it cannot be said that the complainant has himself adulterated the diesel used in the car. In these circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs have failed to prove that the fuel injector was chocked due to adulterated fuel. When it is not proved that the adulterated/low quality diesel was used by the complainant, it cannot be said that the car was not within warranty. So the car was within warranty period. When the car was within warranty period, the OP has wrongly charged Rs.14956/-. Hence, the OPs no.1 and 3 are deficient in providing services to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP no.2 has been given up by the complainant on 9.3.2017, so no order can be passed against OP no.2.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint partly and direct the OPs no.1 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs.14,956/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental agony harassment and litigation charges. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.03.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                              Member