Punjab

Faridkot

CC/22/97

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gitansh Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :           97 of  2022

Date of Institution :      21.06.2022

Date of Decision :         20.03.2024

Anil Kumar aged about 47 years, son of Bhim Sain resident of House No. 411, Tej Ram Street, Near New Market, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Gitansh Motors Private Limited., Morris Garrages (MG) Motor  Showroomm, G.T. Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory/Incharge/Responsible Person.
2. Morris Garages (MG) Motor India Private Limited, Office, 10^th Floor, 32^nd Avenue, Saini Khera Village, Sector 15, Gurugram ( Haryana)-122022 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Incharge/Responsible Person.
3. Morris Garages (MG) Motor India Private Limited, Halol, District Panchmahal, Gujarat-389351, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Incharge/Responsible Person.
4. Rajeev Chaba, C.M.D./President/Responsible Person of Morris Garages (MG) Motor India Private Limited, Office, 10^th Floor, 32^nd Avenue, Saini Khera Village, Sector 15, Gurugram ( Haryana)-122022

           ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

Quorum: Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

cc no.97 of 2022

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Sukhveer Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2, 3 and 4.

* * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President)

                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to replace the  having manufacturing defect with new one or to refund the cost of said  with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on being assured by Ops that MG Gloster Diesel 2.0 Twin Turbo is best diesel vehicle and is intelligent 4WD, complainant purchased the said vehicle for Rs.40,06,302/- which included Registration Charges, TCS, Accessories, Warranty, Handling Charges etc.  Complainant purchased the said diesel vehicle from OPs vide bill dated 09.03.2021 and for this purpose he also availed loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank and also got insured the vehicle besides paying the taxes. Vehicle in question carries warranty for three years on one lakh kilometres against any defect alongwith road side assistance. It is pertinent to mention that complainant also availed the extended warranty for two years more for which he paid Rs.39,791/-. At that time, OPs forbade complainant to get repaired the said vehicle from outside mechanic or service station in case of any defect and in case of repair from outsider, no guarantee or warranty would be provided to him. Further submitted that complainant followed all the guidelines and instructions of the OPs and as per

cc no.97 of 2022

 

their directions, got done the first and second service of the vehicle on 07.04.2021 and 03.09.2021 respectively from OP-1, but after the second service  did not work well and stopped working on road on 15.09.2021 at 12.00 a.m. midnight. On this complainant called OPs, who took the vehicle to the service station and at that time, it had run only 5765 kilometres. Further submitted that in service details, the problem of Fuel Filter Inspection, Replacement and Engine Not Starting was mentioned and vehicle was handed over the complainant with full assurance that it was free from all faults and problems. It was assured that it would run properly and would not cause any problem to the complainant in future. Thereafter, complaint got done the third service on 02.03.2022, but he was shocked to find that vehicle again stopped working during midnight on 18-19.03.2022 at Gurugram and again complainant had to call for roadside assistance and it was taken through truck for service to the service station of OPs where general repair was done and till then,  had run only 16430 Km. In the service details, issue of Gears Stuck, Fuel System, other concerns and starting problem were checked and this time again OPs handed over the  to complainant with full assurance that it would run properly, but after about one month on  17.04.2022 just after running of 1300 km, when complainant was going to attend a bhog ceremony towards Barnala, vehicle was not getting picked up and it ran with very slow speed due to which complainant reached two hours late and he had to suffer huge embarrassment. He again made complaint with OPs regarding faulty functioning of said vehicle and they told complainant to reach their Service Station at Bathinda. On 18.04.2022, complainant reached there and got repaired his  having issue of Engine Poor Pick Up, but same problem persisted again just after the run of only 30km. This  time complainant requested OPs to replace the vehicle or to refund the cost price of said vehicle, but OPs apologised

cc no.97 of 2022

 

and gave 100% assurance that now, there would be no problem, but again on 08.06.2022 at about 6.00 p.m in Jaitu, said  again stopped working and with road side assistance, it was ried to service station of OPs at Ludhiana and since then, vehicle is lying with OPs at their service station in Ludhiana. It is alleged that this problem has been occurring again and again due to manufacturing defect in said . Every time, OPs repair the  and assure that there would be no problem in future but since the day of purchase, said  has been giving huge trouble and inconvenience to him. It is further submitted that complainant made several requests to OPs to do the needful but all in vain. Even e-mails sent by complainant to the Head/OP-4 to redress his grievance bore no fruit and nothing useful is done by them and complainant had to purchase new Hyundai Creta for which he again had to pay huge money. All this has caused harassment, mental agony and inconvenience to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.06.2022, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                        OP-1 filed written statement through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and it is filed with malafide intention to harass the answering OP and therefore, it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. Counsel for OP-1 averred that there is no manufacturing defect in  in question, rather allegations levelled by complainant amount to general repair. Thus, no refund or

cc no.97 of 2022

replacement of vehicle is required. Further averred that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute as there is neither any manufacturing defect nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Moreover, no cause of action arises against answering OP. Defects alleged by complainant were of normal and of general repair which were repaired or removed in terms of warranty. Moreover, warranty services were never denied at any stage. Even complainant has violated the warranty terms and obligations while getting services from unauthorized workshop/mechanic as well as failed to get the requisite services in time and complaint filed by complainant is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits also, ld counsel for OP-1 denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP never approached or allured the complainant to purchase MG Gloster Diesel 2.0 Twin Turbo etc. It is sternly denied that  was not running and working well and on 15.09.2021, it stopped working on road at about 12.00 p.m. It is brought before the Commission that defect in  was found due to use of dirty non genuine fuel used by complainant and said fuel filter was giving problem in starting of the engine. Further clarified that fuel filters, six brake pads, clutch discs and tyres of the are covered for six months/10000km from the date of purchase and in present case, date of purchase is 09.03.2021. after replacement of dirty fuel filter under warranty, vehicle was found okay and complainant took the delivery being fully satisfied. Complainant has made a false story that on 17.04.2022  gave problem of poor pick up which was found normal due to rough uses  and it was rectified. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in said vehicle and defects reported by complainant are removed and are of

 

 

cc no.97 of 2022

general repair. It is reiterated there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                       On receipt of notice, OP-2, 3 and 4 appeared through counsel and filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. It is averred that complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and concocted ones. OP-2, 3 and 4 asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  However, OP-2, 3 and 4 admitted before the Commission that complainant purchased the said  on 09.03.2021 and its first service was done on 07.04.2021 and during or after first service no complaint regarding its  functioning was made by complainant.  Second service was done on 03.09.2021 at Bathinda and it is admitted that complainant brought the issue of non working of  on road at 12.00 p.m. on 15.09.2021. it was brought to their Service Centre at Ludhiana where after examination, it was found that complainant used contaminated fuel due to which sudden problem arose and it was duly informed to complainant and after abundant caution, fuel filter and mini fuel was replaced and repair charges were covered under warranty and then, said  was delivered to complainant on 17.09.2021 in perfect road worthy condition. It is also admitted that complainant again brought the said vehicle on 02.03.2022 for third service and he reported the problem regarding starting of engine on 19.03.2022. after checking, it was found that gear was stuck and accordingly, starter motor was cleaned and  DTC was erased in respect of said  and thereafter, it was delivered back to complainant on 22.03.2022. ld counsel for OP-2, 3 and 4 admitted in their written reply that  complainant again brought the issue of low pick up at their Service Centre in Bathinda on 17.04.2022. When the

cc no.97 of 2022

checked the same, it was  found that wiring coupler was dislocated from the transmission. Answering OPs fixed the wiring without any cost and returned the  to complainant.  On 08.06.2022, complainant brought the issue of differential lock system failure and fault with gear box, showing on display or speedometer. After checking it was found that Engine Control Module was not operational and therefore, relay, wiring harness floor and engine were duly replaced and road test was conducted at intervals of 110 kms and since then,  was found to be in perfect road worthy condition and complainant has been requested several times to take the delivery of said car, but complainant has not taken the delivery of his car despite several requests. Ld counsel for OP-2, 3 and 4 submitted that there is  no manufacturing defect in said  and even there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations and the allegations with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and made prayer for dismissal of  with costs.

6                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-W1/1and documents Ex C-1 to C-33 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Ex OP-1/1, documents Ex OP-1/2 to 11 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Reply submitted by OP-2, 3 and 4 is read as evidence on their part.

8                                                            We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have very efully perused the affidavits & documents placed on record file by respective parties.

cc no.97 of 2022

9                                       From the careful perusal of the record, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased said car from OPs on 09.03.2021 for sum of Rs.40,06,302/- against proper bill, but since the day of purchase, car in question was giving trouble to him as it was not functioning properly. It well proved and evident from the record that complainant purchased the said vehicle from OPs and it is also admitted by OPs in their written reply that complainant brought before them complaints regarding non functioning of said car on multiple occasions. They admitted that on 15.09.2021, when car in question stopped working, they repaired the same and removed the defect that was due to contaminated fuel. It is also admitted that complainant again suffered harassment due to non working of engine on 19.03.2022. OPs admitted in written statement that complainant further brought the vehicle with them regarding issue of low pick up on 17.04.2022 and again he complained about Differential Lock System Failure and Fault with Gear Box due to improper functioning Engine Control Module that was not communicating to modules. There is no doubt that OPs have been making repairs as per warranty conditions but they cannot escape their liability of giving perfect functional model to complainant. It is admitted that there existed some defects in said car, which they have removed. Had OPs taken notice of complaints regarding said car in time and had provided effective and efficient services upto the satisfaction of complainant, case of complainant would have been different. OPs have failed to remove the defect from said car and all this amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

10                                     To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-11 that shows the issue of ‘Engine Not Starting’ in Service Detail document. Document Ex C-13 further reveals the

cc no.97 of 2022

 

problem of ‘Gear Stuck , Fuel System Concerns and Starting Problem’ in Service Details on 19.03.2022. Ex C-14 further depicts the problem of ‘Engine Poor Pick Up’ in Service Detail document on dated 18.04.2022. Ex C-15 also describes the similar issue of ‘Starting Problem Check’ in Service Detail document dated 05.05.2022. Pictures annexed by complainant from Ex  C-17 to Ex C-19 illustrate the issues regarding Differential Lock System Failure,  Gearbox Faulty and DCDC System Failure respectively. Ex C-20 to Ex C-33 are copies of e-mail that show the correspondence occurred between complainant and OPs in respect of his grievance that OPs failed to redress. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case and all documents placed on record by him are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt.

11                         It is noticed that since the day of purchase of said car i.e 09.03.2021, complainant has been in regular touch with OPs and despite repeated requests, OPs did not redress his grievance. Complainant made several requests to Ops to redress his grievance, but OPs paid no heed to his genuine requests. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On the contrary, all OPs are trying to escape their liability and are trying to put off the matter. OPs have nothing to contradict the allegations of complainant. It seems to be huge deficiency in service on the part of OPs as complainant has been suffering for no fault on his part. He has paid full payment for said car and is entitled to get proper product without any defect and he should not be subject to take the vehicle to Service Station again and again for getting effected the minor repairs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service. Since the day of purchase of  car in question, complainant has been in regular touch with

 

cc no.97 of 2022

 

OPs and has been constantly making requests for replacement or refund for said  having manufacturing defect, but all in vain.

12                                     By merely saying that faults found in the car are of general repair and defects found are removable, does not mean that complainant has not suffered harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Had they taken efficient steps at the time of first complaint made by complainant regarding non functioning of said car, there would have been no complaint at all. Had they earlier checked the each and every part of vehicle with full care during and after services and made minor required repairs, complainant would not have compelled to file the present complaint. Due to deficient services on the part of OPs, complainant had to suffer huge harassment and mental agony every time when he faced the problem of stoppage of  or non working of engine. At the time of doing requisite services, OPs were required to check all parts  minutely and should have fitted and corrected carefully with caution all nuts and bolts of the vehicle for the smooth functioning of the same on road.

13                                        It is transpired that action of OPs in not making replacement of said vehicle despite his repeated requests, is inappropriate as they did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by taking effective measures of making replacement of said product appropriately. But OPs did not bother to redress the grievance of complainant, rather started throwing their liability on one and the other party, which amounts to deficiency in service. Had OPs taken notice of complaints regarding said vehicle in time and had provided effective and efficient services upto the satisfaction of complainant, case

 

 

cc no.97 of 2022

 

of complainant would have been different. OPs have failed to remove the defect from said  and all this amounts to deficiency in service on their part.                

14                               In the light of above discussion, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 to 4 in not providing effective and efficient services and they failed to remove the defect from said vehicle. They have caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Hence, present complaint is hereby partly allowed against them. OPs are directed to repair the vehicle in question  effectively. Defective parts either major or minor which need replacement be replaced with caution and requisite repairs be made where necessary upto the satisfaction of complainant to make the vehicle worthy to ply over the road smoothly without any difficulty. Replacement and repairs be done free of cost without charging a single penny from complainant on account of any oil charges or GST, CST etc. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.80,000/- to complainant as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.50,000/-for inconvenience caused to him and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses that complainant had to incur unnecessarily under compelling circumstances to get justice. Document Ex C-7 Motor Insurance Certificate placed on record reveals the fact that complainant has paid huge amount of Rs.70,389/- on account of purchasing insurance cover, but since the last two years said vehicle is in the possession of OPs and therefore, cost of insurance paid by complainant, be also borne by OPs and they are directed to pay Rs.70,389/-of insurance charges to complainant. OPs are further directed to extend the warranty period of said car  for two years from the date of delivery of vehicle to complainant after repairs etc.

 

 

cc no.97 of 2022

 

15                                    Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by OPs within 45 days from the date of  receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed as per Consumer Protection Act.

16                                 Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

17                                         Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law.

18                                      File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated: 20.03.2024

          

Member                      Member                                 President  

(Vishav Kant Garg)    (Param Pal Kaur)    (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.97 of 2022

Anil Kumar    Vs   Gitansh Motors

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Sukhveer Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2, 3 and 4.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of  even date, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated: 20.03.2024

         

Member                      Member                                 President  

(Vishav Kant Garg)    (Param Pal Kaur)    (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)