Date of Filing:22-09-2015
Date of Order:27 -3-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 27th day of March, 2019
C.C.No.496 /2015
Between
Kunuru Suresh Kumar,
S/o.Satyanarayana, aged 40 years,
Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.3-172/2,
Mallreddypally Street, Parkal Village and Mandal,
Warangal District . ……Complainant
And
- The General Manager,
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd office Chandrapura Industrial Estate
Halol –389 351
Dist.Panchamahals, Gujarat State
- The General Manager,
Kun Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.,
23-6-132, Opp.Citizens Club,
Hunter Road, Warangal
- The General Manager,
KUN Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.,
1-8-670, Azamabad, RTC X Roads,
Hyderabad ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.M.Ajay Kumar
Counsel for the opposite Party No.1 : M/s.V.Shankar
opposite Party No.2&3 : Mr.V.Sudheer
.
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the car manufactured by opposite party No.1 and sold to him through dealer has a manufacturing defect and it amounts to deficiency in service, hence to award a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in all.
- The averments of the complaint in brief are that on 3-7-2012 complainant purchased a BEAT diesel car from opposite party No.2 and at the time of purchase he was informed by opposite party No.2 that the warranty will be for 3 years and 1,00,000 Kms run and for that collected extra premium . After the purchase regular services were done by the opposite party No.2&3 and in all 8 services were done to the car and for each service the vehicle was kept with opposite party No.2 for 3days.
At the time of 3rd service complainant noticed problem in AC unit and opposite party No.2 failed to clear it and later he was advised by opposite party No.2 to take the car to opposite party No.3 showroom and accordingly he took the car to opposite party No.3 showroom but the problem was not rectified and he was informed that it will be rectified on the next service.
Complainant visited opposite party No.2 showroom six times during the period from 10-3-2015 to 21-3-2015 and every time complainant complained the problem of AC unit but it was not attended. When the AC was switched on dust on the road side is entering into AC unit and coming inside the vehicle and it resulted breathing problem to the complainant. When the complainant visited his Doctor Rajendra Prasad at Parkal in Warangal District he was informed that the breathing problem was on account of dust in the AC unit of the car and asked the complainant to get rectified the AC unit problem to avoid breathing issue.
The complainant purchased the said car as it was manufactured by opposite party No.1 having a good reputation in the market. But AC unit problem was not resolved by the opposite parties. On account of the dust problem from the AC unit of the car complainant developed breathing problem and affected health and he spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment to the breathing problem. For selling the car having defectively manufactured AC unit the opposite party No.1 to 3 are liable for criminal prosecution apart from liability to pay damages to him. Complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 10-9-2015 calling upon them to pay him a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for breathing problem developed on account of dust seeping into AC unit and for causing mental hardship and to replace the vehicle. In spite of demands there was no response. Hence the present complaint.
- Opposite party No.2&3 filed a common written version whereas opposite party No.1 filed an independent one but the stand in both the written versions is on identical lines. They have denied the complainant’s allegation of defectively manufactured unit fixed to the car which was sold to the complainant and liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. The essence of the stand in the written versions is that when the complainant reported emission of dust from AC unit the opposite party No.2 examined the same diligently and found that the AC unit was functioning within the parameters as set out in owner’s manual and that complainant grievance is unfounded one. The complainant was informed that dust is on account of external source i.e, pollution from outside. For the first time complainant complained about the mal functioning of AC after the vehicle has clocked almost 30,000Kms. If the AC was really defective as alleged by the complainant the emission of dust could have happened in the beginning itself.
The product manufactured by opposite party No.1 is universally applauded for not only manufacturing the vehicle eminent in nature so also are appreciated for their after sale service. Under such back drop its wholly uncharitable on the part of the complainant’s to allege that AC unit is non-functioning. Whenever the complainant brought the car to the opposite party No.2&3 provided best of their services. There was no manufacturing defect to the AC unit installed to the car sold to the complainant. Assumption of the complainant is absolutely false and incorrect and it is devoid of substance. On perusal of vehicle history maintained with opposite parties reveals that on 2-12-2013 at 29960 Kms complainant approached the opposite parties No.2&3 for the first time with a report of malfunctioning of AC unit. During the said service opposite party No.2&3 have attended the grievance of complainant and found that there was no defect in the AC unit of car but even then they have attended cleaning of AC blower to the satisfaction of the complainant. Even on subsequent paid services complainant reported with regard to foul smell from AC unit but infact no such smell is coming from AC unit. The opposite party No.2&3 have undertaken to replace AC Compressor and condenser to the satisfaction of the complainant when the vehicle was brought to the service at 52655Kms and same is shown in the vehicle history but the complainant suppressed the said fact intentionally. Absolutely there is no problem with regard to functioning of AC unit in the vehicle and no foul smell is emitting from the AC unit as alleged by the complainant and it is only an invention of the complainant for the purpose of false claim for compensation.
At no point of time the opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to take the vehicle to opposite party No.3. The complainant has liberty to approach any of the service centre of opposite party No.1 company throughout India for getting the vehicle serviced. There is no chance of dust from the road to enter into car from the AC when unit is switched on for functioning. Since there is no defect in the AC unit of car the question of the replacement of same does not arise. The complainant might have breathing problem and he might have approached the doctor for the said problem but the alleged breathing problem is nothing to do with the functioning of AC unit of the Car. Hence the claim made by the complainant against the opposite parties in the complaint is not sustainable. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
In the enquiry stage the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint and got exhibited copies of purchase invoice, service receipts and legal notice as A1 to A3. For Opposite Party No.1 the evidence affidavit one Sri Sanmukhsingh Khaira stated to be Asst.General Manager is got filed and through him Owner’s manual, comprehensive job sheet are exhibited as B1 and B2. For opposite parties No.2&3 evidence affidavit of one Sri C.Vamshidhar Reddy their Ex-Director is got filed and the substance of the same is in line with the stand taken in the common written version filed on their behalf and through him the vehicle history is exhibited as B3. Both sides have filed written arguments and made oral submissions.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of sale of Car containing a defectively manufactured AC unit and in consequence of it he developed breathing problem and health issues entailing him to claim compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 3 ?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Purchase of car by the complainant manufactured by opposite party No.1 through its dealer opposite party No.2 and availing of three free services from opposite party No.2 are not in dispute. Hence a rowing enquiry is not required in this aspect. The complainant alleges that the AC unit fixed to the car purchased by him got a inherent manufacturing defect and it is sucking the dust from outside when switched on and said dust is emitting into car when it is on run. The entire burden is to substantiate it is more particular when the opposite parties have taken a specific plea that the complainant reported the problem of sucking the dust by the AC unit of the car was after vehicle run for 30,000 Kms first time. This stand of the opposite parties in the written version is not denied by the complainant when he filed the evidence affidavit and in fact to meet the contentions raised by the opposite parties in their written version the complainant has not made any efforts to deny while filing the evidence affidavit. In fact except repeating the facts stated in the complaint the complainant has not made efforts to elaborate the allegation of the defective manufacturing AC unit installed in the car. Even after filing of this complaint the complainant has not sought to submit the subject car to an independent showroom to examine the working condition of AC unit by experienced mechanic.
For complainant except his self servicing statement there is nothing on the record to prove that the AC unit is sucking the dust from outside and emitting inside the car while unit is functioning. As could be seen from the comprehensive job sheet in Ex.B2 after delivery of car to the complainant from opposite party No.2 showroom the complainant took the car for checkup on 20-7-2012 by which time it had run 980 Kms. Thereafter for the first free service he took the car on 28-11-2012 by which time it had run 7,465Kms. The complaint made by the complainant at the first time of free service was low mileage, for the second free service on 13th April 2013 on his request Polan filter was replaced , Engine oil was also replaced and by then the car had run 15,134 Kms. At the time second free service also filter oil, Air filter were replaced.
After 3 free services complainant took the car to the showroom on 26-8-2013 at that time paid service was done and by then the car had run 22,639Kms and complainant reported at that time about low mileage and emission of sound from the front door and jerks which were attended and invoice raised was Rs.1,096/- for the said service. The subsequent paid services to the car was on 2nd December, 2013 by which time the car had run 29,960 Kms the problem reported at that time by the complainant was to clean of AC blower and same was done. In addition to that engine oil filter, fuel filter and Polan filter were replaced , brakes were checked. The subsequent paid services to the car was on 10-3-2014 by which time the car had run for 37,906Kms and at that time the complainant made was about foul smell from AC unit. Thereafter another paid service was on 8-5-2014 by which time the car had run 41824Kms and complainant made at that time was again foul smell from AC unit. Thereafter the car was taken for the another paid service on 21-6-2014 by which time car had run for 45000 Kms and no problem was reported at that time. On 26-09-2014, 8-10-2014, 7-1-2015 and 21-2-2015 the car was taken for paid services and the last service was on 21-02-2015 by which time the car had run for 59743 and the problem was reported was smell from in AC unit, on 26-09-2014, 18-10-2014 and 7-1-2015 he did not report any problem with regard to AC functioning .
The main allegations in the present complaint is when the AC is switched on it is sucking the dust from outside and emitting into car as a result of it complainant developed breathing problem but as elaborated above at no point of time including for free service as carried by the opposite parties complainant did not report this problem of sucking of dust by AC unit outside and emitting into car. For the first time in the legal notice got issued and thereafter in the present complaint, complainant has raised an issue of sucking of dust from outside and emitting into car by the AC unit. If really this problem was there the complainant would have reported the same whenever the car was taken either for free service or paid services. The complainant has not denied the truth or otherwise on Ex.B2 complainant’s job sheet filed by the opposite parties, hence it is required to be considered. The material placed on record by the complainant could speak about the alleged problem of sucking of the dust by the AC unit and emitting into car.
The complainant has alleged that when he visited Dr. Rajendra Prasad he was informed by the said doctor that due to dust problem from AC unit he developed breathing problem and he spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the treatment of said problem but neither he got filed evidence affidavit of said doctor or report and prescription given by the said doctor in this regard. Hence the said claim of the complainant cannot be countenanced. The complainant failed to substantiate that the car purchased by him through opposite party No.2 and deliver through opposite party No. 1 got inherent defective AC unit and he is entitled for reliefs prayed for. Hence the point is answered against the complainant
Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her pronounced by us on this the 27th day of March , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 is purchase invoice,
Ex.A2 is service receipts
Ex.A3 is legal notice dt.10-09-2015
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 is owner’s manual
Ex.B2 is comprehensive job sheet
Ex.B3 is vehicle history
MEMBER PRESIDENT
