Delhi

East Delhi

CC/940/2014

ZUBAIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HINDUSTAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-940/14

In the matter of:

Smt. Sameena Farooqi,

W/O Sh. Zubair,

D/O Sh. Rasool Hassan Farooqi,

R/O, H/No. D-256, Ground Floor,

Abdul Fazal Enclave, Part First Jamia Nagar,

New Delhi-110025

          Complainant

Vs

1. Hindustan Motar Ltd.

Birla Building 10^th Floor

9/1 R.N. Mukherji Road

Calcutta 700001

(Through its Managing Director)

2. M/s Rajive Motors,

Registered Office- L Block, AL-1, Hari Nagar Jail Road,

New Delhi-110064

(Through its Manager/Proprietor)

3. M/s Satya Service Station Ltd.

AL-1, Jail Road, Hari Nagar

New Delhi-110064

(Through its Proprietor/Manager)                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Opposite Parties

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-09/10/2014

                                                                                      DATE OF ORDER         -13/10/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased one Ambassador Car bearing No. DL 11 CA-3570, on 11/10/2013 paying Rs.6,17,261/-  for personal use this New Car, it was assured that it has no manufacturing defect and assured to provide satisfactory services. The car delivered to the complainant started giving problem, the ignition was not well, exhaust smoke was more, and pickup was very low. The engine was giving noise, turbo charger was defective, it used to stop on way and the engine oil used to leak. The car was sent to the respondent workshop on various occasions of which the detail has been mentioned in Para-5 of the complainant only after 8 to 10 days of its purchase, there was a problem in its steering. The respondent deliberately has not mentioned so many short comings on job card which were pointed out by the complainant. The respondent was charging for repairs when the car was still under warranty. She could not use this vehicle for her benefit, she has to travel from Bulandshaher to Delhi for getting the Car repaired. This has resulted in an expense of Rs.25000/-. The respondents were aware of the problems in the car which could not be rectified by the company. They have taken the decision to stop the production of this car. The complainant has paid the total amount of Rs.7,34,885/- which she is entitled to get back with 18% interest. She has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

            The respondent No.2 & 3 filed their reply. They have raised the plea of territorial jurisdiction. It is also alleged that the respondent have rendered satisfactory services to the complainant. The respondent No.2 & 3 had never given any assurance to the complainant with respect to the engine of the car. The car was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. They have admitted that the car was brought to their work shop as mentioned in the complaint. Rest all the allegations have been denied.

            Respondent No.1 has also filed their reply wherein plea of territorial jurisdiction has been raised. They pleaded that allegations are frivolous, misconceived, and baseless. The vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect, whenever the vehicle was brought at the dealer’s workshop, the problems were rectified with utmost satisfaction. There is no ground for replacement of the car. The complainant has concealed the material facts. All the problems were related to normal wear and tear. The odometer reading shows that the vehicle was plying on the road and has almost covered 4616 Km, had there been any manufacturing defect it should not have covered this much distance. The car was sold to the complainant after rigorous test without any defect.

 Complainant filed affidavit in support of his contention. Respondent No.1 has also filed the affidavit of Mr. Gyan Nath Tiwari. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 & 3.

            We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

            In the present complaint, the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect or the defects pointed out by the complainant can be rectified by the respondents. In the affidavit of Smt. Sameena Farooqui, this fact has been specifically alleged that the vehicle in question was purchased on 11/10/2013 from the respondent’s outlet in Delhi. This was registered at Delhi. The vehicle was taken to Rajive Motors for repair and it is still lying at the work shop of respondent No.2 & 3, as is clear from the affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Kumar Saib. As per the allegation in the complaint that the vehicle is having starting problem, its exhaust is throwing lot of smoke, pick up was low, turbo charger was defective. There is oil leakage and this vehicle used to get heat up. The details has been mentioned in para-5 of the complaint, that it was taken five times to the respondents work shop, the lastly on 30/04/2014 when the vehicle has covered 7,237 kms. The complainant filed with her affidavit copy of the Job sheets and job sheets have also been filed respondent No.2 & 3. The first Job sheet dated 23/10/2013 at 891 Km at serial No.1 find mention of starting problem, there was problem with right door and hand brake. The vehicle was delivered same day with the satisfactory note signed by some whose identity is not known. It does not bear the signature of the complainant. The second job sheet dated 30/10/2013 at 1080 km, third job sheet is dated 17/01/2014 at 4616 km showing oil coming from turbo charger, heater not effective not working. Turbo charger was changed. On the documents which are alleged to be satisfactory note, this has been written by the service provider that the Hindustan Motors will be liable for any & all the problem with the engine or any parts, come again, now the vehicle is alright. This is also not signed by the complainant. Thereafter the free service on 14/03/2014, the same instruction has been made regarding the engine and the body parts. On 30/04/2014 it has been specifically noted that seals are leaking, vehicle is getting excessively heatup, there is a noise in the gear box, noise in all the wheels, tapit cover is also not properly fitted. On the basis of these documents, it has been submitted by the complainant that right from the beginning when this vehicle has covered only the short distance of 891 km, there was problem with the starting and when it reaches 7237 km the engine was getting hot, oil was leaking and so many other problems which are noted in the job sheet. This vehicle was taken to the respondent No.2 & 3 for repair and they have issued notice to the complainant which is dated 01/07/2014. This vehicle was lastly given to the respondent on 31/04/2014. The notice dated 01/07/2014 was sent to the complainant after almost three months of the vehicle being handed over for repair. Another notice was sent on 01/10/2014, 14/11/2014, 15/12/2014 and thereafter also. The counsel for the respondent argued that they have provided satisfactory services to the complainant and it is the complainant who has not taken the delivery of the vehicle post repair. As such there is no deficiency on their part they cannot meet the demand of the respondent for the replacement of the vehicle. The respondent No.1, Hindustan Motors have also alleged that the defects are due to use/ misuse of the vehicle and the same cannot be termed as a manufacturing defects. It has been argued by the complainant counsel that it is not comprehensible that the new vehicle will suffer from starting problem when it has not covered even one thousand Km and by the time it reaches 7000 kms its alternator was not working and seals were leaking, engine was getting excessive heatup, noise in the gear box, brakes was also making a noise and so is the case with the wheels of the vehicle. The job sheet dated 30/04/2014 if taken into consideration with the earlier job sheets leaves no room for doubt that this vehicle was having problem with the ignition. For starting the vehicle alternator is a necessary part for supplying the current. Excessive heating of the engine is also associated with the starting problem and malfunctioning of engine. There is no explanation coming from the respondent side how the gear box was making noise. It is the documents of the respondents and burden was heavy upon them to prove that the gear box of this vehicle was not suffering from any manufacturing defects and there was no problem with the engine that the vehicle was not getting started. There own endorsement on the satisfactory note which is supposed to be signed by the owner of the vehicle or by their driver clearly shows that there is some problem with the engine, otherwise there was no need to make the endorsement on the satisfactory notes. The material available on record clearly establishes that the engine of this vehicle was defective and so was the gear system.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration appearing on record, we direct the respondent to replace the engine and the gear box of this vehicle and make this vehicle trouble free by carrying out the necessary repairs and deliver the vehicle to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. The complainant is suffering on account of non availability of the vehicle. The plea taken by the respondent that they have given him notice to take the vehicle cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that the engine and the gear box of this new vehicle was suffering from defect which could not be rectified by the respondent No.1 & 2 despite repeated complaint. The complainant has purchased this vehicle for his comfort and not for discomfort on account of this vehicle braking down mid way and repeated visit to the work shop, this amounts to harassment of the complainant and deprivation of the use of the car from his day to day work. The complainant has invested money to buy this car for comfortable of travelling and not for discomfort. Taking all these facts into consideration, we allow Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant which shall also include the cost of litigation. If this amount is not paid within 45 days from the date of the order 9% interest shall be charged till it is finally paid.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                        N.A.ZAIDI

          MEMBER                                                                                                        PRESIDENT