DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Amrik Singh s/o Puran Singh, R/O of House No. 902, Sector 38A, Chandigarh.

                                                 ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.  General Motors India, Plot No.15, Sector- 32, Gurgaon.

2.  The Manager, Dynamic Motors GM Dealership & Workshop Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA               PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:  Sh. Sunil Saharan, Adv. proxy for Sh. Jatinder Dhanda, Adv. for Complainant.

                                Sh. Chandehas Yadav, Adv for OP No.1.

                                Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Adv for OP No.2.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]           Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties, on the grounds that the Complainant purchased one Optra Magnum car bearing Registration No.CH-04-E-7575 on 16.5.2008. The Complainant alleges that the car in question started giving problem from the very beginning as the suspension was not working properly. The Complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 number of times. But it is alleged that they failed to satisfy the Complainant by removing the defect. The Complainant claims that he had to replace the worn out tyres of his car after having covered just 17000 kms. by spending an amount of Rs.15000/-. The Complainant again reported the matter to OP-2 who assured him that the defect has been removed and the same will not happen in future. The copy of complaint is annexed at Annexure C-1 at page 14 and the same is dated 5.11.2009. It is further stated that the Complainant had to once again replace the tyres after the car had covered approximately 34000 kms.  As according to the Complainant the problem with the tyres remained the same, he again approached the OP-2 on 19.11.2009 with the same complaint but not satisfactory reply was given by them. The Complainant states that on an average the car tyres require replacement after running for nearly 50000 to 70000 kms. and in the present circumstances the same were giving an average of just 1/4^th of the average mileage.

2]           The Complainant further states that there after he had got the suspension system of the car changed by spending an huge amount of Rs.24,219/-. The bill of the same is Annexure C-2. The Complainant states that in view of the above fact, he has suffered great mental pain and agony due to the malfunctioning of the suspension system of the car in question and further, states that the OPs had sold him the car which had an inherent malfunctioning of the suspension system, due to which he had to repeatedly change the tyres, due to excessive wear, as the same were not giving him the proper mileage as would have been under normal circumstances. The Complainant states that he had to spend approximately Rs.80,000/- on the repeated change of tyres as well as repair of the suspension system and that too after the car had only covered approximately 60000 kms.

3]           The Complainant has thus filed the present complaint, seeking relief of directions to the OP to refund the amount spent by him for the repair of suspension system, along with the compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs with an interest of 18@ p.a. on account of financial loss, loss of business and mental pain and agony.    

4]           On notice, initially, OP No.1 failed to make an appearance, though properly served and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.01.2011. Subsequently, OP No.1 moved an application for setting-aside the order dated 25.01.2011 vide which it was proceeded against ex-parte.  As the Complainant did not object to the same hence the application dated 4.3.2011 was allowed and OP-1 was allowed to join the proceedings.

5]           OP-1 & 2 have filed their reply/ version separately contesting the claim of the Complainant. OP-1 in its reply has categorically stated in its preliminary objections that the present complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed with an ulterior motive of harassing and pressurizing the answering OP and the same deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.

6]           OP-1 further states that the car in question had repeatedly visited the premises of OP-2 for free services paid services and minor repairs and has further quoted as many as 15 dates spanning from 1.7.2008 to 27.10.2010 while highlighting this issue. OP-1 has also annexed the history card of the vehicle in question which is annexed as Annexure R-1/1 along with a number of job cards Annexure R-1/2-1/7 and R-1/9. It is admitted by OP-1 that it was only on 19.11.2009 for the first time when the vehicle had traveled 34679 Kms. the complaint of tyre wear was made by the Complainant. On this complaint the vehicle was thoroughly checked and the suspension, shockers, wheel alignment and tyre wear was checked. It is further mentioned that after going through these checks no defect was found. It is admitted by OP-1 that after coving 17000 kms the Complainant got the wheels as well as the tyres changed by a brand name of Yokohama tyres, which as per the submissions of OP-1 are made in China and are not recommended by the manufacturer of the present vehicle. In order to substantiate this fact OP-1 states that the repair order dated 19.11.2009 shows the mentioning of this fact and the same is annexed as Annexure R-1/2. It is further mentioned that the Complainant did not make any complaint regarding the tyre wear after 14.12.2009. In order to substantiate the same the repair order dated 14.12.2009, 9.1.2010, 2.2.2010, 11.3.2010 which are annexed as Annexure R-1/3 to R-1/6 respectively. It is further stated that as the Complainant was extensively using the vehicle and within a short span of time frame it has covered a sizeable distance which required repeated repairs by bringing the vehicle to the premises of OP-2 time and again.  It is stated that from the bare perusal of aforementioned repair orders no complaint regarding the suspension etc. was made by the Complainant and it amounts to the concealment of fact on the part of the Complainant.  

7]           OP-1 states that it was on 14.6.2010 when the problem of tyre wear was again reported and at that point of time the vehicle had already covered 50252 Kms. It can be co-related from the repair order dated 14.6.2010 which is annexed as Annexure R-1/7.  The OP-1 in its defence state that the allegation of manufacturing defect with the said vehicle was from the very beginning stands falsified from the fact that the vehicle was purchased on 16.5.2008 whereas the present complaint was filed on 1.12.2010 which shows that the vehicle was working satisfactorily and was running in good condition. It is further mentioned that the present Complaint is filed with a malafide motive to claim warranty benefits which has expired once the vehicle had completed 50000 Kms on 14.6.2010 and that too after a passage of two years the claim of the Complainant for the relief of repairs under warranty cannot be entertained at this stage. The warranty book is annexed at Annexure R-1/8. On the aforesaid grounds, the OP-1 prays for the dismissal of the present complaint, with heavy costs. 

8]             On merits, OP No.1 states that as the Complainant had purchased the vehicle from OP-2 and had not registered his grievance with them hence they cannot compelled to reply the same. Furthermore while repeating the facts again as mentioned in the preliminary objections, it has denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency on its part and seeks dismissal of the present complaint qua it.

9]           OP-2 has also repeated the same facts as mentioned by OP-1 above and has completely relied upon the vehicle history card which is annexed at Annexure R-2/1 to show the entire history of the vehicle as and when it was brought to its premises for free services, paid services, as well as the repair work on different occasions since its purchase.  OP-2 also prays for the dismissal of the present complaint on the similar grounds of preliminary objections, as well as objections on merit as submitted by OP-1 and demands that heavy costs be imposed in its favour while dismissing the complaint. 

10]          Parties led their respective evidences.

11]          Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

12]          The basic allegation of the Complainant as mentioned in para 4 of his complaint is that the vehicle in question which was sold to the Complainant had an inherent defect with its suspension and because of which the tyres of the vehicle were wearing out more and more, as such Complainant had to repeatedly purchase a new set of tyres even though the vehicle had not traveled enough. The Complainant has annexed two invoices at Pg. 19 and 23 bearing No. 10877 and 17275 dated 15.5.2009 and 9.11.2010 respectively to show the purchase of a set of 04 no. of tyres on two different occasions. Though both the OPs have refuted the allegation of excessive wearing of the tyres claiming that the Complainant was extensively using the vehicle in question, which is evident from the repeated visits to the Workshop of OP-2, as well as also citing the fact that on both these occasions the Complainant had purchased the tyres of the brand name “YOKOHAMA” which is alleged to be manufactured in China and is not as per the company specifications. We have gone through the vehicle history card as submitted by OP-1 and OP-2 from where it is clear that the Complainant on first occasion changed the set of tyres on 15.5.2009 and at that point of time the vehicle had traveled nearly 20000 Kms.  Secondly on the next occasion when the Complainant again purchased a set of four tyres on 09.11.2010 the vehicle had traveled close to 50000 Kms. Hence it is easily understandable to a man of simple common sense that the original tyres which came with the brand new vehicle and were of company specification gave a mileage of just 20000 Kms. only; whereas the tyres purchased by the Complainant of YOKOHAMA brand, which the OPs have alleged to be of inferior quality and are made in China, as compared to the original tyres of the vehicle, gave the mileage of nearly 30000 Kms.

13]          One more aspect has been added by the OPs by claiming that the Complainant had also replaced the original rims by fitting Alloy wheels and as such he has tampered with the quality of rims and due to which the tyres were giving less mileage. Though OPs have failed to substantiate as to from where did this observation came from as we have gone through the entire evidence of the OPs and were unable to locate its mention anywhere. The OPs have categorically stated this fact on oath, but failed to substantiate the same by bringing on record any document and hence, the same cannot be believed.  Even if the Alloy wheels were fitted by the Complainant, the OPs failed to mention about the size and specification of the same and whether it was different from what was recommended by the Manufacturer. However, it is also a common knowledge that the alloy wheels come with original brand new vehicles too and at that point of time the companies shout through their advertisements claiming the same to be an added advantage and luxury. So as such, the fact with regard to the replacement of tyres with a different brand or the change of alloy wheels has clearly not aggravated the problem of wearing of the tyres in any manner but at the same time has given more mileage than the original tyres that came with the vehicle. Hence, the defence of the OPs on this account is totally feeble and carries on weight.          

14]          It is important to visit para 3 of the reply of OP-1 where they clearly mentioned that the Complainant did not complain about the suspension etc. and as such the allegations are unfounded whereas in the same breadth and in the very next line, it is also admitted that “the next tyre wear problem was reported by the Complainant on 14.6.2010 after covering a distance of 50252 Kms”   But further it is mentioned that when the previous tyre wear problem was reported to them the same was repaired as per the detail of Annexure R-1/7 and the complainant was charged an amount of Rs.11514/-. As per the history sheet submitted as Annexure R-1/1 it is important to note that OP-1 has categorically admitted about two occasions when the Complainant had reported the matter about the excessive wear of the tyres of the vehicle. It is also clear from the history sheet that on “TEN” different occasions the wheel alignment and balancing was done by the OP-2.  In addition to the two wheel alignment and wheel balancing that the Complainant may have got done at the time of replacing the old tyres with the new ones. Hence it is proved beyond doubt that OPs instead of locating the problem which was causing excessive wear of the tyres, kept on putting off the matter by simply adjusting the alignment and balancing again and again and the Complainant kept on wasting his hard earned money by replacing the worn tyres with the new ones. The complainant was ultimately advised by another authorized dealer of OP-1 i.e. R.S.A. Motors Pvt. Ltd. on whose advise the Complainant got the suspension assembly replaced by paying an amount of Rs.33,375/-, so as to remove the fault which was causing excessive wear of his tyres all these years. The allegation of the Complainant that OP-2 had failed to locate the problem and had ill advised, so that they were not compelled to replace the faulty suspension assembly during the warranty period, for which the Complainant was very much qualified for, stands proved. It is clear that The Complainant continued to visit the premises of OP-2 again and again and had also registered his grievance twice, about the tyre wear problem which is admitted by OP-1 and Opposite Party-2 in its reply in para 3 (pg.3). We feel that it is a deficiency on the part of the OPs in not fairly advising the Complainant and thus, compelling the Complainant to waste his money by repeatedly changing his tyres.     

15]          The OPs have strongly objected to the allegation of manufacturing defect by giving a detailed explanation through para 8 wherein they clearly mentioned that as the vehicle has continuously been running and had traveled close to 76000 Kms in the past two and a half years hence there is no reason to say that there was any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle.  We fail to understand the denial on the part of the OPs and are also surprised by their reply   because the Complainant has specifically alleged the defect in the suspension assembly of the vehicle had existed since its purchase. The Opposite Parties in their reply are talking about the over all performance of the vehicle which the Complainant has not at all questioned about. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle with a faulty suspension would not stop dead but would move in a manner so as to either cause discomfort to the passengers or end up causing harm to some part of the vehicle and in present case, the tyres were bearing the brunt of faulty suspension.  The OPs in their reply have actually tried to shield themselves behind the continuous running of the vehicle for so many kilometers, citing this to their advantage. While maintaining silence about the status of faulty suspension assembly of the vehicle in question, the OPs have tried to lay the blame of excessive wear of tyres on the driving habits, road conditions and the quality of tyres, but prefer not to explain the performance of a vehicle if the same carries a problem of defective suspension assembly. Hence the silence of the opposite parties on this particular issue goes against them. Hence the opposite parties are found deficient in service on this count. 

16]          The most interesting aspect which has come to light is that though OP-2 has filed its reply and has submitted one Annexure R-2/1 which is the vehicle history card and the same belongs to OP-1.The Opposite Party-1, which remained ex-parte in the beginning and joined the proceedings had submitted the entire record of job cards annexed from R-1/2 to R-1/7 and R-1/9, which  actually belongs to the record of OP-2.  Hence it is surprising that OP-2 at whose door the entire blame has been laid by the Complainant did not bring anything in its defence; whereas, OP-1 has categorically admitted that the tyre wear problem was reported twice and this as per OP-1 is revealed from the details of job cards which were in the possession of OP-2 and were produced in evidence by OP-1.  Hence, we feel that OP-1 instead of coming up with the truth, has actually tried to shield OP-2 in its acts of omission and commission, which resulted into the wastage of money of its unsuspecting consumer. Hence, the deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 is writ large as OP-2 has failed in its obligation of giving a genuine and truthful advice to the Complainant who had been visiting its premises again and again and ended up wasting money by replacing the tyres.

17]          In the light of the above observations, we feel that the present complaint succeeds against the opposite parties and we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-,  as consolidated amount of compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment. The Complainant is also awarded costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

18]          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the opposite parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount except for the cost of litigation.

19]            Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

02^nd January, 2012.                                                                   

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER