STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 42 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 06.03.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 08.03.2017 |
General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Chandrapura Industrial Estates, Halol-389350, District Panchmehal, Gujrat through its Managing Director. …Appellant
V e r s u s
1. Jyotika Manan W/o Sh.Rajan Vashsisht, 151, Phase-V, Mohali.
2. Aryaman Motors, G.T.Road, 117/6 KM Milestone, Near Hotel New World, Karnal.
...Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 16.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.187/2013..
Argued by: Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 has filed this appeal against order dated 16.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint bearing No.187 of 2013 filed by respondent No.1/ complainant.
2. As per facts on record, the complainant purchased a car from Padam Motors- OP No.1(not impleaded as respondent in this appeal) on 9.1.2012, bearing Chassis No.MA6BF-BMNBBT0845905, Engine No.10AB5Z113360036. Thereafter, it was got registered against Registration No.PB-65-R-1171. To purchase the car, loan was raised through HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs.3.50 lacs. Within four months of its purchase i.e. on 8.5.2010 when the car had covered only 3950 Kms, its engine seized near Panipat when the same was being driven by husband of the complainant. The officials of OP company reached at the spot, however, failed to rectify the defect. The car was taken to nearby service station i.e. Aryaman Motors, Karnal-OP No.2/Respondent No.2. It was intimated that there was a defect in the engine of the car. It may also require replacement. The car was kept there without preparing any job card. Request of the complainant to replace the car with a new one was not acceded to. It was further said that without consent of the complainant, the engine was changed. However, after repair, the car was not accepted by the complainant because many complications had arisen on account of change of engine of the car. Till the time of filing of consumer complaint in the Forum, the car remained in possession of OP No.2/respondent No.2.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed. OP No.1 stated that after sale, the car was not brought to its workshop and it had no role to play qua the claim raised by the complainant.
OP No.2/respondent No.2 also filed reply wherein factual position was not controverted. It was stated that the car of the complainant stopped near Karnal and it was taken to its workshop on 10.5.2012 for proper check up and repair. It was said that defect in the car had arisen due to some extraneous factor and it was not a manufacturing defect. It was further said that the engine was replaced with the consent of the complainant, free of cost. It was further said that despite intimation sent, delivery of the car was not taken by the complainant.
In the same manner, by filing reply, similar defence was taken up by the appellant/OP No.3. It was further said that the car was under warranty. However, warranty was limited to the extent of repair/rectification of defective part(s) during the warranty period. Change of engine, free of cost, was admitted. It was further said that the car was ready for delivery since16.5.2012, however, complainant despite intimation, had not got the delivery.
4. All the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint on 16.1.2017, granting following relief to respondent No.1/complainant ;
“Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is allowed with directions to the OPs jointly & severally to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,30,990/- being the price of the car along with interest @12% p.a. with effect from 10.5.2012 till realization. The OPs are also directed to pay compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost Rs.5000/- to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days.”
It was ordered that the amount equal to the price of the car be paid to the complainant with interest. Further compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was also granted towards mental and physical harassment, besides an amount of Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the order was passed by the Forum without looking into the record. Expert report has been totally ignored, wherein it was stated that after repair, the car was running smoothly. After looking into record of the complaint and report of the expert, we are not going to interfere in the order, passed by the Forum.
When granting relief to the complainant, the Forum has observed as under ;
“ The complainant had purchased a new Chevrolet Beat Car on 9.1.2012 bearing Chassis NO.MA6BF-BMNBBT0845905, Engine No.10AB5Z113360036 Regd. NO.PB-65-R-1171. The said car covered only 3950 kilometers, when its engine was seized suddenly when the husband of the complainant was driving the car near Panipat, Haryana on 8.5.2012. The OPs admitted the defect in engine being irreparable, replaced the same with new engine suo-moto without the consent of the complainant.
From the peculiar facts in the present case, it is established that the car was having manufacturing defect. The engine of the car is a vital part of the vehicle and its replacement within a short span of 4 months just on running of 3950 kilometers, definitely diminish the value of the vehicle in the market.
The OPs were afforded several opportunities during hearing of this complaint before this Forum to get the entries of new engine of the car corrected in the records of Vehicle Registering Authority concerned, but they miserably failed to get it done to the satisfaction of the complainant.”
6. It was specifically stated that engine of the new car seized without any reason, whatsoever. Despite opportunities given to the appellant and OP No.2 to get entry of change of engine number in the registration certificate of the car, they failed to do so. It is correct that different engine number shown in the registration certificate may create difficulty as occupant of the car will remain under apprehension that someone may not stop and put question about the change of engine number. We have seen the report of expert. It was only said that when they put the car to test it was running smoothly. The contention of complainant is that there was manufacturing defect in the car. However, no finding has been given as to why engine of new car seized. If such like instance happens with a new car, naturally the consumer will lose confidence in the ability of car to run in future and will remain under stress that the car may fail at any time during journey.
7. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Premanchal Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramdass & Ors. 2009(3)CLT 121, to contend that during warranty, only defective parts were to be replaced. We have seen the judgment. In that case, relief was declined to the complainant on account of his act and conduct, so reflected in paragraph 12 & 13 of the judgment, referred to above. The complainant therein probably failed to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in dispute. In view of the above, no benefit of ratio of judgment can be given to the appellant. Thus, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
9 Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
08.03.2017
