BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 836 of 09.12.2014.
Date of Decision: 22.07.2015
Harinder Pal Singh, Prop. M/S. Poonam Textiles, 358-D, Focal Point, Phase-VIII, Ludhiana.
.… Complainant
Versus
1. Jaycee Automobiles Ltd., G.T. Road, Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Manager.
2. Audi AG I/VK 33, 85045, INGOLSTADT, Germany, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
…..Opposite parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum: Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President
Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member
Present: Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Kapil Katyal, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)
1. Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed Harinder Pal Singh, Prop. M/S. Poonam Textiles, 358-D, Focal Point, Phase-VIII, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Jaycee Automobiles Ltd., G.T. Road, Opp. Dhandari Railway Station, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Manager etc. (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- with a prayer to issue directions to the OPs to repair the car in question to the satisfaction of the complainant and to refund the repair charges of Rs.4,84,054/- paid by the complainant to OP1.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Audi car model A4 bearing registration No.PB-10-CJ-9013 manufactured by OP2 from OP1, who is authorized dealer of OP2. OPs claimed that the car manufactured by them is of world class quality and gives no trouble. However, the car in question did not come upto the expectations of the complainant as the car in question from the very beginning was not running smoothly and the complainant has been making complaints with the OP1 but OP1 failed to rectify those problems completely as and when the car in question was taken to the service centre of OP1. The complainant further alleged that in the month of April, 2013s when he was on his way to Patiala from Ludhiana for his personal work, the car in question all of a sudden shut down in the middle of the road. He several times tried to restart the engine but could not succeed. The complainant made telephonic call to OP1 and asked it for help as he was struck on the highway due to the abrupt shut down of the car in question. To his utter surprise and shock, opposite party No.1 showed its inability to tow the vehicle to their service centre at Ludhiana. Ultimately, finding no other alternative, the complainant himself arranged to tow the car in question and brought the same to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on 24.04.2013. To the utter surprise and shock of the complainant, OP1 failed to disclose the reason for the abrupt shut down of the car in question. OP1 kept the car with it since 24.04.2013 to 17.09.2013 i.e. for approximately 146 days. During this period, the complainant has been continuously asking OP1 regarding the fault in the vehicle, but the OP1 failed to give any satisfactory reply regarding the problem in the car. It is pertinent to mention here that during these 146 days, the OP1 failed to provide any alternative vehicle to the complainant for his use and at the same time, the complainant deprived of using his car for such a long period for no fault on his part. It is further alleged that on 21.06.2014, the car again started giving more problem and was to be taken to the service centre of the OP1. This time the car was delivered back on 26.06.2014. Again with the assurance that the car will not give any kind of problem to the complainant but to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant on 13.08.2014 the A.C of the car stopped working. Again the car was to be taken to OP1 and on the asking of the complainant, OP1 again failed to disclose the reason or the non-working of the A.C. and they insisted that the car be left with them for necessary repairs. The complainant finding no other alternative has to leave the car with OP1. This time again the complainant asked the OP1 to provide the alternative vehicle to meet the day to day needs of the complainant. The OP1 told the complainant that they would charge Rs.8,500/- per day for the alternative vehicle to be provided to the complainant. Thus, claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.
3. On notice of the complaint OP1 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement cum affidavit on 15.06.2015 by way of sworn affidavit of Sh. Harpreet Singh, Authorized person of OP1 by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed since the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; present complaint is liable to be dismissed since the complainant is not a consumer in terms of definition under Section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act. Since the car was purchased by M/S. Poonam Textiles and thus the car was purchased for business purposes. Further stated vide para B, C, D, E, F, G of the preliminary objections of Ex. RA1/2. Car was purchased for the use of M/S. Poonam Textiles which is proprietorship firm as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Car is not covered under warranty in case there is negligent driving. Since the car was not covered under warranty, the entire cost was liable to be borne by the customer i.e. complainant. On merits, denied the contents of corresponding paras of the complaint being false and frivolous. It is also alleged that the complainant has falsely put forth the facts in the complaint and did not give Rs.4,84,054/- rather paid only Rs.1,21,272/- as further remaining amount of Rs.3,62,782/- only invoices were issued but no charges were levied/received by the OPs. On this sole ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has adduced evidence by way duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and also tendered affidavit of Pargat Singh Ex. CB in support of his version and closed the evidence of complainant. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Daljinder Singh, Assistant Service Manager of OP1 and also attached documents Ex. RA1/1 to Ex. R1/32, wherein same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and closed the evidence of OP1.
5. The case was fixed for arguments. OP1 filed written arguments while Ld. counsel for complainant orally argued that the car was purchased by the complainant as proprietor of M/s. Poonam Textiles which was being used for the personal activities and no business activity was undertaken by the complainant through the use of this car. However, during the period 24.04.2013 to 05.11.2013, the car of the complainant remained with OP1 for 209 days and the complainant spent almost Rs.4,84,054/- but in spite of spending such a huge amount for said period, OP1 failed to repair the car to the satisfaction of the complainant because the car broke down at many occasions after its repair causing mental agony and harassment. Thus, OPs are liable to refund Rs.4,84,054/- as well as to repair the car to the satisfaction of the complainant.
6. Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld counsel for OP1 filed written arguments again taking same objections as already mentioned in written statement cum affidavit. Again it is reiterated in the written arguments that the car was purchased on 26.03.2008 and the warranty had already expired. The car was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further averred that on 29.06.2012, the car was reported to the workshop of OP1 in accidental condition with heavy damage to the windshield and rear door. The car was duly repaired to the satisfaction of the purchaser company under insurance claim made by the complainant and delivered back on 05.07.2012 to the complete satisfaction of complainant along with invoice dated 05.07.2012 which has been duly received and signed by the representative of the complainant along with satisfaction note certifying the satisfaction with the work done.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of complainant as well as defence taken by the OP1 and also perused the entire record placed on file.
8. It is evidence that the car was for the personal use of the complainant and not for the commercial activities as alleged by the OP. the car was purchased in the year 2008 while the car started giving trouble somewhere in April, 2013 which was after the expiry of the warranty period. The car was reported to OP1, which was kept by OP1 from 24.04.2013 to 17.09.2013 i.e. for approximately 146 days. As per invoices, the requisite amount has been paid by the complainant for the repair of the said car. From the invoices placed on file Ex. R1 to Ex. R7, it is proved that for the repair of the said car, many parts were replaced by the OP, which were on charge basis. There is one more page No.69 on the file, which is a satisfaction note dated 05.07.2012. There is no denying the fact that the complainant has made certain payments, as many parts as detailed in the invoices, have been replaced by the OP for the repair of the said car but the car has not been properly repaired.
9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and this Forum directs the OPs to repair the car of the complainant qua the defects already removed or the service so provided up to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, parts which have already been used, if required, be replaced with new one. No charges shall be levied by OP1 for those particular parts for which the complainant had paid. OPs are further burdened with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of order. Certified copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
(S.P.Garg) (R.L.Ahuja)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:22.07.2015
Gobind Ram
