Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/14/2015

Sarinder Singh Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Gagan Anand Adv.

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	14 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	08.01.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	29.10.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sarinder Singh Brar s/o Sh.Sarjit Singh Brar, R/o House No.703, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. through its Vice President-Marketing, Sales & Aftersales, 401-412, Palm Court, 20/4, Sukhrali Chowk, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon 122001

 

2]  M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Director/Partner Sh.Amarjit Singh, #182 & 185, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

 

3]  M/s Dynamic Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU      MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Chanderhas Yadav, Adv. for OP-1

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for Opposite      Party No.2 & 3.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant purchased SUV model CAPTIVA of Chevrolet brand, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, from Opposite Party No.3, for Rs.19.60 lacs on 03.6.2009 vide Ann.C-1.  It is averred that the complainant used to drive the said vehicle occasionally approx. 1200 kms./month and got it served from Opposite Party NO.3 and thereafter, from Opposite Party No.2 also an authorized dealer. 

         It is averred that in July, 2014, the said SUV Captiva vehicle used to have long self in an irregular manner on start up, so it was taken to Opposite Party No.2 (authorised dealer) and by that time the vehicle had run almost 76000 kms. only. After inspection, the Opposite Party NO.2 intimated that there seems to be a problem with the engine of the vehicle and the same required to be overhauled and will be charged approx. Rs.2.50 lacs.  It is also averred that after discussing the matter the company and OPs, the Opposite Party No.2 re-affirmed that engine required to be overhauled and became ready to replace the turbo part without any cost, but they will charge for engine repair, which could cost Rs.One lac or more, though he was agreed that the problem with engine of said vehicle is inherent and is a manufacturing defect.  It is pleaded that in the e-mails exchanged between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, it never denied for Turbo replacement free of cost.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was also shocked to know that most of the engines of Captiva model of year 2008 and early 2009 have manufacturing defect, as a result the workshop of OPs already remained flooded with vehicles for engine overhauling.  Ultimately, the vehicle of the complainant was also repaired by Opposite Party No.2 by 14.10.2013 and it also handed over a bill of Rs.2,32,646/- for payment and taking delivery of the vehicle. The complainant agitated the matter with Opposite Party No.2 and asked it that he was supposed to pay labour charges only and nothing else as the service of the vehicle has been conducted due to manufacturing defect in the engine, but to no avail.  As such, the complainant was forced to pay the said amount of Rs.2,32,646/- (Ann.C-6).  It is pleaded that the engine and other integral parts of the engine had inherent manufacturing defect, which is evident from the fact that the engine and other parts were replaced, rather than overhauled by the OPs which is contradictory to their earlier statement about overhauling of engine.  It is also pleaded that Opposite Party No.1 has wrongly charged the said amount of Rs.2,32,646/- which cannot be charged otherwise as the vehicle was serviced/repaired to correct the inherent manufacturing defect.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted the manufacturing of the vehicle in question. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  It is stated that the vehicle in question was not under warranty and the vehicle which is not covered under warranty, the engine of the same cannot be replaced under warranty, therefore, the OPs No.2 & 3 were at liberty to charge for the repair work. It is also stated that the complainant never contacted Opposite Party No.1 nor it ever assured the complainant to change the turbo part without any cost. It is further stated that the plea of inherent defect does not lie in the mouth of the complainant after using the vehicle for six longs years and the same can be result of negligence and knowing no good skills to drive the vehicle in question. It is stated that Opposite Party No.2, despite the fact that the vehicle is not covered under warranty, just to show will gesture, a part of Rs.82,104/- was charged under warranty, but despite that the complainant is not satisfied and raising the present complaint. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The Opposite Party 2 Padam Motors has filed reply and admitted the sale and service of the vehicle in question and also that on 7.7.2014 the complainant approached the answering Opposite Party for service of his vehicle and noted down the problem of “Starting problem” in the job card.  It is submitted that on checking the vehicle, it was found that there was problem in the engine and engine job was to be done and since the warranty period had expired, it was informed that the said repair shall be on paid basis.  It is denied that Sh.Jaswant Singh ever conveyed that engine requires to be overhauled, because as per policy of General Motors, parts replaced and overhauling is not recommended and further that the complainant was never conveyed about replacement of turbo part without any cost. That the complainant was told that replacement of turbo part would be on chargeable basis.  It is denied that engine of the vehicle had inherent and manufacturing defect.  It is asserted that the complainant was clearly informed that the engine parts i.e. short block A and Head completed cylinder, which is of dealer price of Rs.2,15,694/- and Rs.82,118/- respectively (much below the market price) shall be replaced free of cost and no labour for fitting the same shall be charged.  It was also informed that all other repairs including replacement of turbo, clutch repair/replacement and timing job shall be charged and the complainant readily agreed for the same. It is also asserted that on 14.10.2014, the complainant paid the repair amount and took the delivery of his vehicle without any complaint and also signed the satisfactory note, invoice/bill as well as gate pass and did not wrote any remark of his dis-satisfaction.  It is pleaded that the vehicle in question was purchased on 3.6.2009 and thereafter till 7.7.2014, when it had run about 73,942 kms, no complaint regarding any defect in the engine was received by the answering Opposite Party, which shows that there was no manufacturing defect because had there been some defect in the engine, it would have arisen much earlier.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         The reply filed by Opposite Party NO.3-Dynamic Motors is similar to that of Opposite Party No.2, with a prayer to dismiss the complaint, hence needs not to be repeated.

 

3]       Rejoinder/Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions of the complaint and controverting that of the replies of the Opposite Parties.   

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant, who is the owner of Chevrolet SUV Captiva, purchased the same by paying an amount of Rs.19.50 lacs in the year 2009, has claimed that he noticed some humming noise in the engine, which was reported to the Opposite Parties as far back as in Nov., 2010, when the vehicle had covered only 22860 kms. However, the complainant claims that since then on one occasion or the other, the vehicle kept on giving problem and the same were registered on different dates and finally, the engine was replaced on 17.9.2014 under warranty terms & conditions without charging anything from the complainant.  However, the Opposite Party No.2 still raised a bill of Rs.2,32,646/-, which the complainant paid.  The complainant has pointed out that the Opposite Party No.2 has charged Rs.84,832/- on the replacement of Engine Turbo Charger, whereas the same was promised to be replaced under warranty conditions as similar to the promise of replacement of engine parts.  Thus, claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, he preferred the present complaint against them.

 

7]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant has preferred to raise the objection of limitation claiming that the present complaint is barred by the reason that the vehicle in question was sold in the year 2009, and the warranty terms & condition were only limited to two years or completion of 50000 kms. whichever is earlier.  As per the Opposite Parties, the vehicle had travelled nearly about 76000 kms and is already more than 6 years old and therefore, the allegations of manufacturing defect do not hold ground.  The Opposite Party No.2 has claimed that it was only out of a goodwill gesture that it preferred to repair the vehicle in question by not charging anything towards the engine parts, which were replaced as promised to him, after the complainant had raised the matter with Opposite Party No.1 repeatedly.  Whereas, the allegations of the complainant with regard to the charging of Rs.84,000/- for replacement of turbo charger have been denied on the score that it was only the engine and not the turbo charger which was offered to be repaired free of cost and other parts of the vehicle which had worn out and needed to be replaced, were charged as per the bill Ann.C-6.  In these circumstances, the Opposite Parties have denied any deficiency in service on their part, thus prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against them individually.

        

8]       The complainant has initially purchased his vehicle from Opposite Party NO.3, but at the same time it was being serviced by different authorised dealers including Opposite Party NO.2. The cause of action for filing the present complaint being the invoice Ann.C-6 raised by Opposite Party No.2 through which Opposite Party No.2 has charged Rs.84,832/- for the replacement of defective Engine Turbo Charger, whereas the other engine parts namely Short Block A and Head Completed Cylinder mentioned at Sr.No.1 & 2 of Ann.C-6 were replaced, free of cost and the complainant has claimed that the same were replaced under the warranty terms & conditions and for such reasons an alphabet “W” is found printed against these two parts, indicating that the same were covered under the warranty conditions, whereas the Engine Turbo Charger, which is an inseparable part of the engine and was also promised to be replaced free of cost, was illegally charged for Rs.84,832/- by Opposite Party No.2 giving rise to the present dispute.

        

9]       The main question raised by the Opposite Parties with regard to the limitation of the present complaint being time and also being warranty terms & conditions, deserve to be out rightly ignored for the reason that the Opposite Parties having promised to do a certain job, free of cost, should not have charged for the same and the present dispute, which has arisen only on the score of the complainant having been charged Rs.84,832/- is certainly within the limitation period as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

10]      The claim of the Opposite Parties with regard to the manufacturing defect, alleged by the complainant, is also ignored as the Opposite Parties having themselves preferred to replace the defective parts of the engine free of cost has already covered the matter and need not to be gone into much detail. 

 

11]      The complainant has pointed out that the issue of replacement of the defective Engine Parts under warranty conditions was forwarded to the Senior Officials of Opposite Party No.1 vide Ann.R-3/3 for necessary sanctions and it was only after receiving such positive signal, the same were replaced without charging any amount against them.  But at the same time, the Engine Turbo Charger, even though being an inseparable part of engine of the vehicle and the same deserved to be replaced in the same manner as other engine parts was illegally charged by Opposite Party No.2, thus giving rise to the present dispute.

 

12]      The Opposite Party No.2 has nowhere tried to explain that the Engine Turbo Charger did not deserve to be dealt in the same manner as the other parts mentioned at Sr.No.1 & 2 of Ann.C-6, which were replaced free of cost, were as per the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party NO.1 did not sanction the replacement of Engine Turbo Charger free of cost, thus entitling them to charge an amount of Rs.84,832/- from the complainant on that score.  Though the document placed on record by the complainant Ann.C-4 as well as the document placed on record by the OPs as Ann.R-3/3 should have been supplemented by the OPs by placing on record the communication vide which the Opposite Party No.1, manufacturer of the vehicle, had categorically given sanction with regard to the replacement of Engine Parts mentioned at Sr.No.1 & 2 of Ann.C-6 and did not cover the body part i.e. the Engine Turbo Charger mentioned as Sr.No.16 of Ann.C-6. In the absence of any conclusive evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties to address this issue, deserves to be construed against them. Therefore, the act of Opposite Party No.2 in charging an amount of Rs.84,832/- against the replacement of Engine Turbo Charger vide its Invoice Ann.C-6 dated 14.10.2014, amounts to deficiency in service.  However, the prayer of the complainant with regard to refund of the entire amount of Rs.2,32,646/- which included other such parts, which needed to be replaced on account of natural wear & tear or being consumable, cannot be acceded to as such parts are never covered under warranty conditions. 

 

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and dismissed against Opposite Party No.3. The Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed as under:-

[a] To refund Rs.84,832/- to the complainant, charged as the cost of Engine Turbo Charger;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

         The above said order shall be complied with within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

29^th October, 2015                                            

                                                                                                Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.14 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 29th day of October, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against  Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and dismissed qua Opposite Party No.3                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member