The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Gujrat represented through its Managing Director, O.P No.2 is the Narbheram Chevrolet, Jamshedpur represented through its Service Manager and O.P No.3 is Venus Auto Works Pvt. Ltd., Januganj, Balasore represented through its Service Manager.

                   2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has purchased one Chevrolet Beat PS car from O.P No.2 on 25.02.2011 on payment of Rs.3,75,885/- (Rupees Three lacs seventy five thousand eight hundred eighty five) only bearing Regd. No.JH-05-AG-8514, further numbered as OD-11-B-6364 vide Chassis No.MA6BF482ABT041517 and Engine No.B12D1442547KC3 with a warrantee of 3 years from the date of purchase or its running till 1 Lakh kilometers, whichever is earlier. The said vehicle caused some manufacturing defects within one year/ 5000 KMs of its running such as Malfunction Indication Light (MIL) as noticed on 30.01.2012. On 27.04.2012, the O.P No.2 instead of rectifying the defect, replaced 2 sensor of MIL and sensor was again replaced on 12.06.2012, as per complain made by the Complainant. Again, as per e-mal request made by the Complainant, the O.P No.2 replaced clutch plates after running of 5000 K.Ms. Thereafter, the front left wheel bearing was replaced on 09.03.2013 within 14,000 K.Ms running of the vehicle, causing continuous unusual noise below the vehicle and as per complain made by the Complainant, the O.P No.2 repaired and delivered the same to the Complainant on 04.05.2013 by replacing front left tyre and horn only after keeping the vehicle from 28.04.2013 to 03.05.2013 with him, again appearing noise and followed by indication of MIL. Before 2days of expiry of warrantee period, the Complainant had been to service camp of O.P No.3 at Baripada, but the O.P No.3 advised to come to Balasore and left the vehicle after partial repair. Thus, the Complainant had been to O.P No.3 along with his vehicle on 25.02.2014, where O.P No.3 kept the vehicle and delivered on 08.03.2014, demanding Rs.6,600/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred) only for changing different parts on the plea that warrantee is over. The Complainant received back the vehicle after payment of Rs.6,600/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred) only. Again after few days and few kilometres of running, the vehicle emerged new problems in addition to old defects such as radiator fan and odometer not functioning, coolant getting dried generating high engine heat on 2 to 3 K.Ms running, thus the Complainant is unable to ply the vehicle any more. Thus, the Complainant approached the O.Ps in several occasions for repair of the vehicle, but neither they repaired not provided detailed service record of the vehicle, causing metal agony to the Complainant. The Complainant had sent legal notice to the O.Ps on 31.03.2014 through his Advocate, but the O.Ps are silent. Delivery of said vehicle to the Complainant having manufacturing defects and fruitless repairing till expiry of warranty period instead of replacement with a new one amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. Cause of action to file this case arose on 24.04.2014. The Complainant has prayed for refund of purchase price of the vehicle with interest along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.            

                    3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the O.P No.1 being the manufacturer and not running any dealership on its own, is confined to manufacturing activities and is not a provider of services as such. From the record of the vehicle history and maintenance, which as stated contain admitted and undisputed details pertaining to the vehicle, show that there has been utter neglect on part of the Complainant in having the servicing of the vehicle undertaken as per this prescribed servicing/ maintenance schedule. Records of vehicle history and maintenance also show that the Complainant in utter negligence and callousness amounting to recklessness, undertook LPG fitment from unauthorized workshop and that the same was done despite the most strict advice against the same from the respondents. To reiterate, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Concerns, if any, arising from utter neglect and callousness amounting to recklessness on the part of the Complainant in maintaining the vehicle, would be most unfair to be attributed to the respondents and the blame for such concerns, if any, relies entirely on the Complainant. The complaint petition, it is respectfully submitted, is without any merit. It is further stated that in absence of any cause of action, the question of limitation does not arise and is accordingly denied and refuted. So, in the above facts and circumstances, this Forum may be graciously pleased to dismiss the complaint.   

                    4. Written version filed by O.P No.2 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as Consumer. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that the Complainant knowingly and arbitrarily changed/ modified Car engine from petrol engine to Gas kit engine with his own sweet will and without permission/suggestion/notice/intimation to the O.P No.2 or to the O.P No.1-Company, for which modification forcibly petrol engine of car to Gas kit engine creates damage, problem and defects of the car and for which any modification/new fittings/changes of the body of the car voids warranty. Moreover, the car company manufactures the cars by high skilled, expert trained Engineers and tested the car as “OK” in all sides before sending for selling to the market. The O.P No.2 has intimated to the Complainant on 07.05.2013, 08.05.2013 and 10.05.2013 respectively regarding unauthorized fitment of LPG kit without recommendation by CSIPL, but the Complainant arbitrarily without following the procedure/guidelines/conditions of warranty/without conversation with the O.Ps and their authorized work shop, fitted the LPG kit in the vehicle outside by an unauthorized workshop, so as per rule and law manufacture’s vehicle warranty stands void is legal. And on reply by the Complainant to O.P No.2 on dtd.10.05.2013 admitted such “as it was not properly intimated previously, due to concern about the problems in fitting of LPG kit, with reference to your suggestions and as discussed over telephone, I am withdrawing the fittings from my vehicle and regain to the original fitting”. Hence, the present complaint filed by the Complainant may be dismissed.

                    5. Written version filed by O.P No.3 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as limitation. The O.P No.3 has further submitted that the same car being repaired in workshop of O.P No.3 at Balasore on 25.02.2014 i.e. after the warranty period is over. As per reply by the Complainant on 08.05.2013 at 12.07 A.M that the same car was entered for service on 04.05.2013 has already intimated vide invoice No.IR000416, dtd.04.05.2013 in remark column as “JOB NON GENUINE LPG KIT FITTED BY CUSTOMER OWN END FROM OUTSIDE PSF”, which has been received by the Complainant. As per rule of service and warranty that “any modification, alternations made to the vehicle such as including but restricted to adding lights changing engine specifically to increase horse power, or using wide tires and or any other modification in the vehicle that may likely to have an effect on the performance of the vehicle (e.g. defects caused by the installation of non homologated wheels and tires are not covered by the warranty)” and failure to use genuine pats/fluids (oil, coolant brake fluid) and/or other accessories/consumables recommended or appropriate General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Also, the Complainant fitted unauthorized LPG kit on or before 22.08.2012 in outside and unauthorized workshop without the knowledge./intimation/ due permission obtained from CSIPL arbitrarily which violates the terms and conditions of the warranty. So no doubt, the warranty of the vehicle is void due to tampering/modification the vehicle as per law. Moreover, an appreciation note given by the Complainant on 04.05.2013 to the O.P No.2 as the Complainant is very satisfactory on their service that there will be no problem henceforth of the said car bearing Regd. No.JH-05-AG-8514. So, the case of the Complainant may please be dismissed with cost. 

                    6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether there is any manufacturing defects in goods i.e. in the alleged vehicle/ deficiency of service/ unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    7. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. Neither the Complainant nor his Advocate was present and did not take part in hearing. So, pleading of the Complainant remains as his case. According to his pleading, he has purchased the vehicle on 25.02.2011 on payment of Rs.3,75,885/- (Rupees Three lacs seventy five thousand eight hundred eighty five) only from O.P No.2 and the vehicle was duly registered bearing Regd. No.OD-11-B-6364 having warranty of 3 years from the date of purchase or its running till 1 Lakh K.Ms, whichever is earlier. It has been pleaded that there was manufacturing defects within 1 year/ 5000 K.Ms of its running and the detailed defects has been mentioned in his pleading, which was duly repaired by competent authority i.e. O.P No.2 from time to time and lastly on 08.03.2014 at Service camp at Baripada, after due service of the vehicle, O.P No.3 demanded Rs.6,600/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred) only as service charges as the warranty period is already been over and the Complainant has paid the same amount. But, the old defects like radiator fan and odometer not functioning, coolant getting dried generating high engine heat on 2 to 3 K.Ms of running of the vehicle, for which the Complainant is unable to ply the alleged vehicle anymore and approached the O.Ps for repair and they neither repaired nor provided detailed service record of the vehicle, causing mental agony to the Complainant, for which he prays as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. But, when he claimed that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, nothing has been clearly proved by establishing record of the competent authority that the defect noticed by the Complainant is the real defect or it is the manufacturing defect or it is for other reason. On the other hand, from the arguments of O.P No.1, it has been disclosed from the record of the vehicle history and maintenance that the Complainant in utter negligence and callousness amounting to recklessness, undertook LPG fitment from unauthorized workshop and that the same was done despite the most strict advice against the same from the respondents/ O.Ps and there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The pleading of O.P No.2 and 3 also discloses about the fitting of LPG kit from outside PSF. According to their pleading, modification forcibly petrol engine of car to Gas kit engine creates damage, problem and defects of the car, for which any modification/new fittings/changes of the body of the car voids warranty. So, periodically not servicing in time, fitting of LPG kit unauthorisedly amounts to negligence on the part of the Complainant and there is no clear proof regarding manufacturing defect of the alleged vehicle and there is also no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

                    8. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove his case on merit and there is also no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps as discussed earlier, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-   

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 12th day of March, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.