DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.336 of 17-07-2012

Decided on 09-05-2013

Mani Singh Sidhu S/o Harjinder Singh R/o # 58, Khudian Gulab Singh, Distt. Sri Mukatsar Sahib.

........Complainant

Versus

1.General Motor India Pvt. Ltd.,Registered Office at Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, Distt. Panchmahals, Gujrat, through its Managing Director.

2.Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Showroom & Workshop, Goniana Road, 8^th Mile Stone, Nh-10, Bathinda, through its partner/proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.S.M Goyal, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the opposite party No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the opposite party No.2.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on the allurement of the opposite parties the complainant has purchased Optra Magnum car bearing chassis No.MA6NFAK DBBH 012858, Engine No.ZZ081453727K, Temp No.PB-03-X(T)8563. The complainant has availed the loan of Rs.5 lacs from HDFC Bank, at a very high rate of interest and the said car was purchased by the complainant for his personal use, benefits & got registered with registering authority and registration No.PB-30H-5716 was issued to the said car. The delivery of the said car was taken from the opposite party No.2, the authorized dealer and representative of the opposite party No.1 against the full payment. The black colour car was delivered to the complainant on 1.2.2012. The said car started giving the problems as there was a problem regarding the ignition from the very beginning. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to get his problem solved but it did not listen to him. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 atleast 5 times but nothing has been done. Thereafter the complainant sent an e-mail dated 27.2.2012 to the opposite party No.1 regarding his dissatisfaction and the problems faced by him and the indifferent attitude of the dealer. The opposite party No.1 office had asked the details of the dealership and the vehicle from the complainant through its e-mail dated 27.2.2012. The complainant has supplied all the requisite information. On 28.2.2012 the complainant complained the opposite party No.1 about the abovesaid problems and conduct of the opposite party No.2. In response to the abovesaid e-mail, Mr. Manmohan Bhaskar through e-mail dated 28.2.2012 informed the complainant that the opposite party No.1 has adviced its service manager M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh to personally get in touch with the complainant and to provide the necessary assistance at the earliest.

The complainant had gone to Chandigarh in February 2012 and during his visit a big technical fault cropped up in the said vehicle regarding the ignition as such he took the same to the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 at Chandigarh i.e. M/s Padam Motors, it took the said car to its workshop saying that its delivery would be given within 2-3 hours after removing the defect. But when the complainant entered the abovesaid workshop, he found that the entire car was lying dismantled in parts. The complainant took some photographs of his car, to record the condition to the effect that the parts and accessories were lying scattered in the workshop. The complainant has sent the photographs to the opposite party No.1/company through e-mail, but it did not give any proper or satisfactory reply to his requests. The complainant is facing the problems due to the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The complainant has spent his hard earned money to buy the said vehicle to cater his personal and daily needs, but as there is defect in the car, the complainant has to engage taxi or some other source of transportation to do his personal and daily works. The complainant further alleged that the internal and external wiring of the said car has been opened many times and the internal wiring was removed by the dealer of opposite party No.1 and changed with another one but the defect was not cured as the same was not minor. The complainant has got issued the legal notice dated 5.6.2012 to the opposite parties but no reply has been sent by them. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to replace the chassis of the abovesaid car and to provide the free maintenance, guarantee/warranty for the period of 3 years, from the date of replacement alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it is a leading brand having reputation internationally. Such reputation can be earned only by virtue of the quality of the product and the services through time-tested record in such respect. Strict quality checks are undertaken on all the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party No.1 before they are sold in the market. All the vehicle models of all manufacturers undergo the statutory testing and approval on all material counts under Rule 126 and 126A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The onus lies on the complainant to substantiate his allegations regarding the manufacturing defect in the ignition of the said vehicle by leading expert evidence/report given by the expert in that particular field. The starting/ignition process of the said vehicle can 'At Times' get affected by the extraneous factors which have got nothing to do with the manufacturing defect. The fuel sold at refilling stations, such as petrol or diesel, contain the certain degree of impurity. As long as the impurity in the fuel is within normal limits, there is no problem. At times, due to adulteration, the impurity of the fuel crosses its normal limits, the same carries the risk putting it simply, of interfering with the nature and manner of the supply of the fuel to the engine and its starting process. When the complainant is reported regarding the starting process/ignition, it would be normal to examine all the possible causes of such concern. For instance, the starting mechanism, the mechanism relating to the production of the spark in the combustion chamber, the supply of the fuel etc. would be required to be checked. It is quite usual for the parts to be taken out in connection with such examination. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle on 1 February, 2012 by July 7, 2012, it may be seen from the said vehicle record that it has covered the distance of 15386 kms. The daily running of the said vehicle comes nearly to 100 kms. There is no such manufacturing defect in the car in question.

3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that there is no defect in the car in question. The complainant had not sought any service from the opposite party No.2 and as per the service history of the said vehicle, the car in question had been serviced and repaired from M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh. The allegation relating to the defects in the said vehicle is confined to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 has no concern with the same as the said vehicle had been sold in a good condition to the complainant who had duly acknowledged the same and signed satisfaction note. The complainant after being satisfied with the features of the said vehicle had opted to purchase the said vehicle. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle the complainant had duly inspected the said vehicle and after being satisfied with the condition, features, running and performance of the said vehicle the complainant had issued the satisfaction note in this context. The said vehicle was sold to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 and invoice, sale letter and other requisite documents were handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase of the said vehicle on 1.2.2012. The colour of the vehicle was given as desired by him. The opposite party No.2 has repudiated that the said car started giving the problem of the ignition from the beginning and the complainant has visited the opposite party No.2 for 5 times or the opposite party No.2 has not listened to him. Moreover as per history the complainant had taken the said vehicle to M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh on 27.2.2012 with the problem of wiring that was rectified and the vehicle was returned to him on 1.3.2012 and he after being satisfied about the condition of the same received vehicle duly satisfied with the repairs conducted by M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh. The opposite party No.2 had been attending all the customers with due diligence and gratitude. The allegations regarding the dismantling of the said car into parts is repudiated. Moreover the repair job is undertaken by the duly trained staff under the supervision of the service engineer. No amount had been charged as the said vehicle was under the warranty. As per the vehicle history the complainant had brought the said vehicle on 15.3.2012, 14.4.2012, 12.4.2012 and 12.5.2012 to M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh and the same was serviced/repaired to his satisfaction on each occasion and he had never raised any complaint with respect to the wiring qua which the job had been undertaken by M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh on 27.2.2012. The details of the job undertaken with respect to the said vehicle by M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh as per the service history:-

As per the vehicle history the said vehicle has already run 10967 kms as on 12.5.2012. The wiring of the said vehicle was checked and rectified on 27.2.2012 by M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh and thereafter the complainant had never made any such alleged complaint in the said vehicle on all the dates of his visits to the service station of M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh. M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh has not been impleaded party to the present complaint.

4 The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one Optra Magnum car on dated 1.2.2012 for Rs.9,39,400/- from the opposite party No.2, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and has taken the loan of Rs.5 lacs from HDFC Bank.

7. The disputed facts between the parties are that the car in question started giving problems from the very beginning of its purchase as there were problem of wiring and ignition. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 service centre several times for the rectification of the defects but the opposite parties could not rectify the defect in the said vehicle because there was/is manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties to rectify the defect or to replace the said vehicle or to refund his hard earned money alongwith interest, as the said vehicle was not giving any benefits and not meeting his daily personal needs. The complainant has sent e-mails to the opposite party No.1 regarding the problems being faced by him. On 14.2.2012, when the complainant went to Patiala for his personal work, his car again started giving the ignition problem. The complainant took the said car to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 at Patiala, it repaired the said vehicle and returned the same to him and assured him that his car will not give any ignition/starting problem in the future. The service centre of Patiala had charged Rs.500/- for the labour charges vide Ex.R8 i.e. retail invoice despite aware of the fact that the said car was under the warranty period and the approved agent was liable to repair the same without charging any amount for the same but they still charged the amount from him. The opposite parties produced in their evidence Ex.R7 retail invoice which shows that they charged zero amount for the labour charges, which shows that both the documents produced by the opposite parties are self-contradictory to each other. On 27.2.2012 the complainant had gone to Chandigarh and during his visit a big technical fault occurred in his vehicle regarding the ignition and he took the same to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 at Chandigarh to rectify the problem. The service centre conveyed the complainant that they would return the said car in one hour after solving the problem. The complainant after waiting about 4/5 hours reached the workshop to inquire about such long delay in delivery of the said car, he was shocked and surprised to see that his whole car was lying dismantled in parts. The parts of the new car are sealed ones when the same was given to the complainant on fresh purchase, but once the same was opened by the service centre of the opposite party No.1 at Chandigarh, it looses its value to a great extent and is treated as repaired one due to some major defect. The complainant took the photographs of his dismantled car and its parts while it was lying in the workshop at Chandigarh and sent the photographs to the opposite party No.1/company through e-mail, Ex.C11. The complainant further submitted that the engineers of the opposite party No.1 are unable to rectify the defect as there is some manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and has delivered the said car to him on 1.3.2012. The complainant was in Patiala on 13.3.2012 and went to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 for first free service of his new car and they charged Rs.400/- approximately for the labour charges vide Ex.R11. Again the complainant went to Chandigarh for some personal work on 15.3.2012 and the said car started giving the problem regarding the ignition/starting problem so he took the same to the workshop/service centre of the opposite party No.1 and it returned the said car, after replacing the alternator, back on 16.3.2012. In Ex.R19 it has been specifically mentioned that 'Alternator noise checked' and in Ex.R18 it has been specifically mentioned that 'Alternator was changed' but the opposite parties have mentioned in their reply and affidavits that 'Align & noise check' which means that the alignment and noise was checked only. Hence the changing of the Alternator and its giving of the noise itself is sufficient to prove that a material part of the vehicle, having life of years together, usually never gives any such problem, shows that there was some manufacturing defect in it. On 12.5.2012 the complainant went to the service centre of the opposite party No.1 for the IInd free service but they charged Rs.447.64 as labour charges vide Ex.R26, whereas Ex.R28 shows that they charged amount for lubrication. The complainant further submitted that 'Mud Flap and car cover' were not given to him at the time of the delivery of the said vehicle and the same are still pending and despite his various visits the defect in the said car has not been rectified.

8. The opposite party No.1 submitted that it is the manufacturer of the Optra Magnum car and all the products pass through quality checks and all the models of all the manufacturers undergo the statutory testing and approval on all material counts under Rule 126 and 126A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The onus lies on the complainant to substantiate his allegations of manufacturing defect in the ignition of the said vehicle. The starting/ignition process of the said vehicle can 'At Times' get affected by the extraneous factors which has nothing to do with the manufacturing defect. These defects can occur due to the fuel sold at refilling stations, such as petrol or diesel, contain a certain degree of impurity. As long as the impurity in the fuel is within normal limits, there is no problem. When the impurity of the fuel crosses its normal limits, it creates problem in the starting process. The complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to show that there is any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle.

9. The opposite party No.2 submitted that the complainant has alleged that he has visited them 5 times but has not mentioned any date when he approached them. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that there is any manufacturing defect and his allegation regarding the approaching to the opposite party No.2 for five times is falsified vide his own e-mail dated 27.2.2012, Ex.C4 wherein he has alleged to have merely called the opposite parties and not visited the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged in his complaint that he was surprise to get the delivery of the black car whereas as per the booking form he himself opted the black colour car in question. The complainant has also issued satisfaction note dated 1.2.2012 with regard to the delivery of the said vehicle. Vide job card Ex.R5 dated 14.2.2012 the said vehicle has been inspected at 1000 kms and no complaint has been made by the complainant at that time and the said vehicle had been received by him after duly signing the satisfaction note. The allegation of the complainant regarding the ignition problem of the said vehicle and sending the e-mail to the opposite party No.1 due to non attending of his complaint by the opposite party No.2 is falsified from the fact that he has sent the e-mail on 27.2.2012 and on the same day the said vehicle has been brought by him at 12:26 pm with a problem in the wiring of the said vehicle. The said problem has been duly rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant which has been signed as satisfaction note on Ex.R15. The only grudge of the complainant is confined to the opening of the said car. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that in order to rectify the wiring problem, a few parts has been opened but the same have been refitted in the same manner that has been duly attested by Sh.Dhananjay Kumar, service engineer of M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh, he has also given the affidavit Ex.R3. The complainant has never raised any problem with respect to the fitting of the parts in any of his future visits to the service station of M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh. The complainant visited at the service station M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh and on all occasions the complainant was satisfied with their services. The complainant had sought free service at 5000 kms from M/s Padam Motors, Patiala vide job card Ex.R9 that was after 27.2.2012 and no complaint has been raised by him and nothing has been reported in the job card Ex.R9. The vehicle has already run upto 15386 kms on 7.7.2012. On 14.2.2012 the said car has run for 1494 kms; on 27.2.2012 for 3086 kms; on 13.3.2012 for 5014 kms; on 15.3.2012 5090 kms; on 10.4.2012 for 8094 kms; on 12.4.2012 for 8294 kms; on 12.5.2012 for 10967 kms and on 7.7.2012 for 15386 kms. So the average running of the said car is more than 100 kms per day which is not possible in case of a defective vehicle The complainant has never reported any complaint about the wiring in any of the subsequent visits to the opposite party No.2. Mud Flap and car cover were not given to the complainant, this fact is falsified from the job card Ex.R25 and Ex.R27.

10. The main allegation of the complainant is regarding the ignition/starting problem and dismantling of the said car for the repair of the wiring when taken to M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the said vehicle has covered 15386 kms upto 7 July, 2012 i.e. before filing of this complaint if there would have been any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle the complainant would not have been able to ply the said vehicle for such a long distance. Moreover the allegation regarding the dismantling of the said car is with regard to M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh and the same has not been impleaded as party but if there was any problem relating to the wiring it is obvious that the wire pass through the entire engine and for checking and rectifying the said wiring problem it required to dismantle some parts. Moreover after rectification of the said problem regarding the wiring and ignition the complainant has never approached M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh, M/s Padam Motors, Patiala or the opposite party No.2 with the complaint that the parts dismantled by the M/s Padam Motors, Chandigarh are not fitted properly or there is any noise in the said vehicle or the same has effected its functioning or running in any manner. The allegations regarding the ignition and starting problem that the complainant has started facing the problems from the very beginning from the date of purchase of the said vehicle is falsified as a perusal of service history Annexure R1/A shows that on 27.2.2012 the battery was checked; on 15.3.2012 Alignment & noise checked; on 10.4.2012 Dash Board Noise Checked; on 12.4.2012 RHS new Mirror fixed; on 12.5.2012 System-D 2^nd free service car lubrication- Air filter replaced and on 7.7.2012 Tyre rotation replaced, oil filter replaced, engine oil Gen. Check up done and in labour details it has been mentioned that 'Wheel balancing two wheel cost to subject charges (lathe work) labour charges'. The service history clearly shows that there was no major defect that was ever reported by the complainant. Each and every time the complainant has received his vehicle with entire satisfaction. The complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect regarding the ignition/starting problem. Moreover the complainant has received his vehicle after duly signing the satisfaction note. The reliance can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobile & Anr., 1 (2013) CPJ 47 (NC) and Kumari Namrata Singh Vs. Manager Indus-A Division of Electrotherm & Anr., 2012 (3) CPR 570 (NC) and further the reliance can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Krishan Kanhaiya Gontiya Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive company Ltd. & Ors., IV (2010) CPJ 229 (NC) and TELCO Vs. Hardip Singh & Anr. 11 (2011) CPJ 236 NC.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the counsel of the complainant, have distinguishable facts and circumstances.

12. Thus keeping in view the facts, evidence placed on file and precedent laid down by Hon'ble National Commission we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties thus this complaint is dismissed without any order as cost.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

09-05-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member