Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/45/2022

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harshbir Singh Banga - Opp.Party(s)

Updip Singh & Sukhandeep Singh Adv.

14 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/45/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	29/04/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	14/02/2024

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana.

 

2.     David Allan Schock, Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana.  

 

3.     Dhiraj Dixit, Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003, Haryana.   

….Appellants

Versus

 

1.     Harshbir Singh Banga, Resident of H.No.532, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh – 160020.

 

2.     Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113, Haryana.

 

3.     Praveel Goel, Director, Rama Motors, Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113, Haryana.   

 

4.     Ram Murti, Director, Rama Motors, Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113, Haryana.  

…. Respondents

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
		None for Respondents No.2 to 4.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/22/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	08/03/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	14/02/2024

 

 

 

Harshbir Singh Banga son of Sh. Pritam Singh Banga, Resident of H.No.532, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh – 160020, bearing Director of M/s J.H. & Co., SCO 1032-33, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

….Appellant

Versus

 

1.     Ford India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Signatory, Corporate & Regional Office – North: 5th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003.

 

2.     Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Signatory, Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113, Haryana.

 

3.     David Allan Schock, Director of OP No.1 i.e. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003.  

 

3.     Dhiraj Dixit, Director of OP No.1 i.e. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003.  

 

5.     Praveel Goel, Director of OP No.2 i.e. Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142 Chimes, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003.

 

Second Address:     Praveel Goel, Director of OP No.2 i.e. Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113.  

 

6.     Ram Murti, Director of OP No.2 i.e. Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Plot No. 142 Chimes, Sector 44, Gurgaon 122003.

 

Second Address:     Ram Murti, Director of OP No.2 i.e. Rama Motor Sales & Services Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 349, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula – 134113.  

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Ritesh Tomar, Advocate for Respondents No.1, 3 & 4.
		Respondent Nos.2, 5 & 6 ex-parte.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of above captioned cases i.e. A/45/2022 filed by the Appellants/ OPs No.1, 3 & 4 (Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Harshbir Singh Banga & Ors.) and A/22/2022 filed by the Complainant (Harshbir Singh Banga Vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), against the order dated 02.02.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. District Commission’), vide which it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/316/2020, filed by the Complainant (Harshbir Singh Banga), against Opposite Parties (Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), by passing the following order: -

“9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint of the Complainants is allowed against the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are directed to either replace the Car in question with absolutely new one, without any charges, or refund the price thereof i.e. Rs.59 lacs alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 17.4.2019 till its realisation.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony & harassment due to supply of defective car, apart from payment of Rs.15000/- towards litigation expenses.

          The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.20,000/- apart from the above awarded amount.

        The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.”    

 

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the same can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

4.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that he purchased Ford Mustang GT-5.0L A/T Race Red Car from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, on 17.04.2019 for an amount of ₹59 Lakh, after getting it financed from Yes Bank for a period of 3 years at an EMI of ₹1,71,425/- per month. The said vehicle suddenly broke down on 05.07.2020 at about 3 P.M. in afternoon at Sector 7/8 Roundabout, Chandigarh, when the Complainant was going for a noon ride. It was averred, the Complainant was driving the car nearly at a speed of 20 km/h when it suddenly broke down and came to a total halt. The Complainant came out of the car and as the breaking down of the car had created a traffic jam on the roundabout, he tried to push the car and in that event suffered a serious injury on his spine. The complainant called Opposite Party No.1, but they failed to reach the spot on time and finally, reached the spot at around 5.00 PM. To the shock of the Complainant, no expert technician or engineer had come to inspect the car on the spot and instead only regular employees dealing with day to day regular business affairs were sent. Ultimately, the car was towed to Opposite Party No.1 for inspection. However, the Opposite Parties vide email dated 18.07.2020 informed that the engine of the car requires replacement and directed the complainant to get the engine replaced. It was alleged, the Opposite Parties have not assigned any reason as to why the engine of the car got suddenly seized and have blatantly directed the complainant to get the same replaced and if the engine of the car is replaced at such a period when it has covered only 4000 kms., the resale value of the car would also fall sharply and in no event can a replaced engine of the car carry the same efficiency & value to that of a newly built unit. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

5.         The Opposite Party No.1 filed reply, which too was adopted by Opposite Parties No.2, 5 & 6 in terms of order dated 02.09.2021, inter alia, pleading that the relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is purely on principal-to-principal basis and each party is responsible for its own action. As per the Dealership Agreement entered into between Opposite Party No.1 & Opposite Party No.2, it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No.2 (Dealership) to provide after sale & ancillary services to its customers. It was pleaded that the vehicle repair history showed that the vehicle was driven rashly, dangerously and negligently. The engine of the car also stopped working because it was being driven in a manner which is not ideal for driving, but despite this, the Opposite Party No.1 was ready and willing to change the engine of the car within the terms of warranty.  It was submitted that since Opposite Party No.1 offered to replace the engine of the car which was admitted by the Complainant vide Annexure C-9, it cannot be said that Opposite Party No.1 committed any deficiency in service qua the subject car. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

6.         In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 pleaded that the Complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action which may have arisen for filing the present complaint personally against answering Opposite Parties, whereas the cause of action, if any, lies against Opposite Party No.1 Company.  It was asserted, the Complainant has improperly & unnecessarily impleaded answering Opposite Parties, who were neither a necessary nor a proper party for the full & final adjudication of the present lis, as such their names required to be struck off from the title of the complaint.  It was submitted, the complainant has not relied on any such evidence in order to ascertain whether the subject car was suffering from any defect or not.  It was pleaded that vide letter dated 16.07.2020, the complainant has already been informed that the engine of the vehicle was required to be replaced and that the spare engine was readily available with the concerned Dealership, but rather than giving his consent for carrying out the said replacement of the engine, the complainant filed the instant complaint.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

7.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission allowed the Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Parties as noticed in the opening para of this order.  

 

8.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, Appeal No. 45 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellants/ OPs No.1, 3 & 4 (Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Harshbir Singh Banga) and Appeal No. 22 of 2022 has been filed by the Complainant (Harshbir Singh Banga Vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.).

 

9.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

10.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

11.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant matters deserve to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

12.         It is the case of the Appellants that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding.  Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the impugned order was passed in the absence of a manufacturing defect based on presumptions and assumptions. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, the Opposite Parties have admitted in their reply that subject vehicle being a legendary sports car in the world is not only known in India, but also globally for its manufacturing quality and precision. It has also been admitted by the Opposite Parties that the subject car is one of the most awarded sports car in the world, which is testament to the fact that it is build in one of the most technologically advanced plants and as such the question of the subject vehicle suffering from manufacturing defect does not arise at all.  Further, the Opposite Parties also admitted that the company imports the subject vehicle as a Completely Built Unit (CBU) into India. To our mind, if the engine fails to perform the way it should, does it not constitute a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality?  Considering the same, the Ld. District Commission, after taking into account the totality of facts and evidence placed before it, has rightly observed that the breaking-down of the car in question just after completing only 4000 KMs distance, is totally contrary to the reputation of the OP Car Company and their claims about its unmatched quality and performance.  The replacement of engine of the car, as offered by the Opposite Party, certainly amounts to major repair and if a customer has to undertake such major repair after driving the vehicle only 4000 KMs, then it is not less than a shock and the joy of owning a world famous car is totally destroyed. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further argued that since the Appellants were ready to replace the engine of the subject vehicle at no cost to the Respondent No.1/ Complainant, it was impermissible under law to order replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle. Again, we are not inclined to accept this argument because the Respondent No.1/Complainant spent a huge amount of ₹59 lakhs to buy the car in question. We fail to fathom the reluctance of the Appellants to replace the vehicle or refund the cost price thereof. Why should a consumer accept a repaired product after paying the full price for a new one? The Ld. District Commission has thus rightly observed that even if the engine of the car is replaced with new one, the uncertainly about the efficiency & quality of the vehicle always remains in the mind of the Complainant. The manner in which the Appellants conducted themselves by alleging that it was because of rash & negligent driving of the owner of the vehicle that the engine broke down, certainly paves the way for refund or replacement of flawed product and adequate compensation for the harassment undergone by the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OP Company is clearly established. In these precincts, the Ld. Lower Commission rightly passed the order impugned before us. Under above circumstances, no case is made out, in favour of the Appellants /Opposite Parties.

 

13.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

14.         It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

15.         Now coming to the enhancement in the award passed by the Ld. District Commission, as sought by the Appellant/Complainant, in his appeal bearing No.22 of 2022, we are of the considered opinion that on account of aforesaid deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties, the Appellant/complainant was adequately compensated to the extent of harassment and mental agony, which he suffered, along with the cost of proceedings. No ground for enhancement of compensation and cost of litigation is made out. Needless to mention here that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumers, by awarding exaggerated compensation, at the cost of the service provider. To our mind, nothing more is payable to the Appellant/Complainant. 

 

16.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. We are, therefore, dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeals  being bereft of merit are accordingly dismissed. The order of Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

17.         In view of the present Appeals being dismissed, the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

18.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of A/22/2022 - Harshbir Singh Banga Vs. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

 

19.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

20.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

14^th February, 2024                                                                   

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”