THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PAPUM PARE DSITRICT, YUPIA

ARUNACHAL PRADESH

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. CA(PP)-02/2021

Shri Habung Butung, S/o Habung Nyime, R/o Lummer Dai Road, Naharlagun, PO/PS-Naharlagun, District Papum Pare (AP)

-Versus-

1. Iconic Automobiles, Lekhi Village, PO/PS-Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh,

2. RD Automobiles, Natun Gaon, Dibrugarh, Assam-786008

QUORUM:                       MR. METO MEGA, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

MR. TARH LOMA, HON’BLE MEMBER

             MISS DEEPA YOKA, HON’BLE MEMBER

ADVOCATES APPEARED:

For the Complainant                  : Mr. Habung Aape

For the Opposite Party No. 1      : Miss R. Taku                

For the Opposite No. 2              : Miss L. Moriam       

Date of final Hearing                 :28.10.2022

Date of Judgment                      : 24.02.2023

JUDGEMENT & ORDER

(24.02.2023)

1. This is a Complaint petition filed under section 12 of the consumer Protection act 1986 (For short, Act 1986) with a prayer for awarding the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,11,500/-(Rupees Four Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred), only from the Opposite Party No. 1 (in short O.P No. 1), on the ground of willful deficiency of service to the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Bolero Pickup on 15/02/2020 and on 19/08/2020;he had come to Respondent No. 1 for first free servicing which was completed and released on 03/10/2020 after retaining the vehicle for 45 days. However, just after 3 days of servicing, the engine oil was showing low which he informed the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, he got the oil filter changed from Opposite parties. On 13/10/2020, while going to Namsai near Bogibeel, Oil leakage from the silencer pipe was detected after which the complainant have contacted the respondent No. 1 and under their instruction the complainant took the Vehicle to RD Automobiles, Dibrugarh, Assam. On 23/10/2020, Respondent No. 2 informed that Failure of Turbo Charger, some engine components and some metallic particle were found from inside chamber.
3. The Complainant also stated that the Respondent No. 1 brought back the said vehicle from Respondent No. 2 on 05/12/2020, wherein the Respondent No. 1 promised to repair the vehicle within a week stating that the vehicle would fall under warranty as the said vehicle was just eightmonths old. But Respondent No. 1 took another 50 days to repair the vehicle and finally was released on 30/01/2021. Being aggrieved on the negligence of the respondents, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 4,11,500/-including the cost of mental harassment. The counsel for the complainant has submitted and prayed this commission that that the O.P No. 1 may be directed to pay as follows: -

1. Business loss incurred                         :- Rs. 2,41,500/-

(Considering income @Rs. 45,000/- per month)

2. Mental Harassment and Hardship        :- Rs. 1,50,000/-

Cost of Litigation                                 :- Rs. 20,000/-                         

    Total                                                  :- 4,11,500/-

(Rupees Four Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five Hundred only)

4. The Complainant relied on judgment passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in Arun SS-Vs- EVM Passenger Cars Pvt Ltd, dated 17/12/2015.,

5. That the O.P No. 1 & 2 contested the case by filling their Written Statement wherein O.P No. 1 stated that at the time of first free servicing, there was  problem of engine oil leakage. The order for the required parts items like Oil chamber and others were placed on 19^th August 2020 itself without any delay, which were to be procured from the state of Maharashtra as these were not readily available at dealer. The required items were received in the middle of September and thereafter necessary servicing and replacement were done, the vehicle was handed over to the Complainant and the complainant also expressed full satisfaction to the service and did not make any complaint at that point of time.
6. Respondent No. 1 also denied that the Complainant had ever contacted him telephonically informing about the defect of his vehicle within three days from the date of delivery but it was only on 13.10.2021 the dealer was telephonically informed about the defects. On being informed the complainant was asked to bring the vehicle at workshop at Naharlagun for necessary service but it was the complainant who expressed his inability to come as he was in Assam. Therefore, the complainant was strictly instructed to take the vehicle to nearby authorized Mahindra dealer only at Dibrugarh, Assam and not to get the vehicle repaired at unauthorized dealer but later it was transpired that the complainant before taking the vehicle to respondent 2, got it repaired by unauthorized dealer during which non-genuine parts were used which itself is the violation of terms and conditions of the warranty policy.
7. Respondent No. 1 also stated that when the vehicle was at Dibrugarh, he offered the complainant whether he required technician should be deputed from Naharlagun for examination of his vehicle at Dibrugarh and the offer was denied saying he wanted his vehicle to be repaired at Naharlagun. Hence, as desired by the Complainant, the vehicle was brought to Naharlagun (by towing) by incurring Rupees Sixteen Thousand and thereafter the vehicle was fully repaired and handed over to the complainant ensuring that the vehicle was free from all defects.
8. Respondent No. 2 stated that on getting call from the complainant about the breakdown of his vehicle, he promptly attended the complainant and deputed technician at breakdown site at Bogibeel, Assam and thereafter towed the vehicle, diagnosed the vehicle, informed the complainant about the defect and its root  cause The respondent No. 2 also stated that after bringing the vehicle at dealer, the dealer remained closed due to global pandemic and Puja holiday. But after resuming service, the respondent No. 2 has provided required service to the complainant. On 28^th October 2020, the engine was dismantled and it was found that almost engine part was damaged. Accordingly same was informed through phone to the complainant and informed that the defect caused due to installation of non-genuine oil filter from local garage and running the vehicle without any lubrication, which was not covered by warranty as the warranty was rejected by the Mahindra Co. Ltd.
9. That the opposite party No. 1& 2 contended in their reply that the complainant has filed this complaint to harass them and they have not done negligence in service and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint
10. The learned counsel for the O.P No. has submitted a citation of Ravneet Singh Bagga-Vs- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Others in SCC No. 66(2000).
11. Learned Counsel from all sides has filed their Written Argument. We have heard their oral submission and perused the records of the case.
12. The point for determination in the case are:-

1. Whether there was deficiency in service and negligent in providing Service on the part of the opposite Party No. 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation as claimed? If yes, what relief?

13. Point No. 1. It is contended by the complainant that he bought the vehicle namely Bolero Pickup from the Respondent No. 1 on 15/02/2020 and on 19/08/2020; the complainant approached the respondent for first free servicing however, the respondent No. 1 kept the vehicle for forty-five days and was released on 03.10.2020.
14. The complainant also contended that in first free servicing, generally oil filter is checked and changed however, engine or its parts cannot be tempered and opened. Servicing hardly takes two or three days however in the instant case, the respondent no. 1 has kept the vehicle for 45 days which implies clear negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1. On the other hand, the OP No. 1 in his written argument has admitted that the vehicle was kept in the dealer for forty five days and just after three days of releasing, the vehicle started giving problem and later on 13.10.2020, after 10 days the vehicle started leaking oil from the silencer pipe while travelling to Namsai. The OP No. 1 also admitted that under his instruction, the complainant has taken to the vehicle garage of the Respondent No. 2 and kept the vehicle for 10 days. Thereafter the OP No. 2 informed about the technical failure and sent a bill amount of Rs. 1, 06,881 to the complainant on 02.11.2020. However, the respondent No. 1 has not offered any reason for delaying the release of the vehicle for forty five. Further, the OP No. 1 has clearly admitted that just three days after the release of the vehicle from the garage, the engine oil started leaking from the silencer pipewhich is not normal. He stated that Engine oil would generally leakif there was a breakdown of engine chamber but in the instant case the oil was leaking from the silencer pipe and OP No. 1 failed to address this defect which clearly implies deficiency in service.
15. In the instant cause of action arose on two occasions, firstly when the vehicle was brought to the OP. No. 1 for free servicing and the second time was when the oil started leaking from the silencer pipe and brought to OP No. 2. In the first instance, the deficiency of service is sufficiently established. In the second instance, the fact in hand is that the oil started leaking from the silencer pipe just after three days of free servicing done by the OP No. 1 and on the advice of the Mechanic of OP No. 1, the oil filter was changed due to which the engine got damaged from inside. Here, had the OP No. 1 did the servicing and checked properly during the first free servicing, the Engine oil would not have leaked subsequent change of parts and harassment could have been avoided. The later defect in engine and its component was the result of deficiency in service caused by the OP No.1 during the first free servicing. Deficiency in service and negligence in providing service to the complainant has been caused by the OP No. 1 only. Hence the Point No. 1 is in affirmative in both the cases.
16. Heard the counsel for the complainant in length and thoroughly perused the record. Having gone through the records and after hearing the parties, this Commission found that the OP No. 1 committed negligence in providing service and caused untold misery and dragged into unnecessary harassment thereby causing mental agony. Hence this Commission is of considered view that there is clear case of deficiency in service caused to the complainant by the O.PNo 1.  Hence, the complaint petition is allowed.
17. In view of the above, this Commission direct the O.P No.1 to pay as under: -

1. Business loss incurred                   : - Rs. 1, 00, 000/-
2. Mental Harassment and Hardship  : - Rs. 70,000/-
3. Cost of Litigation                           : - Rs. 20,000/-                        

 Total                                                     : -1, 90, 000

(Rupees ………………………………………………………… only)

18. The Opposite parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order copy failing which an interest@12% per month shall be charged till final payment of the aforesaid amount. The OP-2 is liable to 10% of the total award.

With this order the complaint is disposed of.

(Miss Deepa Yoka)                         (Mr. Gote Mega)              (Mr. Tarh Loma)

   Member                                      President                         Member