BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Virender Kumar Gupta, resident of H.No.2, Aman Colony, Near 22 No. Phatak, District Patiala.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Krishna Auto Sales, 177-E, Industrial Area, Chandigarh (authorized service center) through its Managing Director.

2.      Krishna Auto Sales, authorized dealer, G.T. Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana.

3.      Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., A-1/1 Five Star Industrial Estate, Shendra, MIDC, Aurangabad 431201.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Harmandeep Singh Sullar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 3.11.2006 the complainant purchased one Skoda Laura DSG car for Rs.16,84,500/- from OP-2.  He got the same regularly serviced from OP-1 but experienced large number of problems  which were shown to them from time to time and were either corrected or the parts replaced.  His son visited the OP-1 number of times and complained about the bad condition of the electrical parts and cooling of the air conditioner.  On 9.4.2008 the memory switch as well as the electric fan were replaced under warranty but the same problem reoccurred on 23.8.2008 and again the electric fan was replaced.  Dis-satisfied, the complainant again went to the showroom of OP-1 and the compressor was replaced under warranty.  The problem of cooling occurred again after one month and he went to the OP on 6.6.2009 and the car remained in the showroom of the OP till 17.6.2009.  On 18.6.2009 the complainant received an email from OP-1 informing that the car was lying with them but as the warranty expired, the AC compressor and AC condenser needed to be replaced at 50% cost.  He served a legal notice requesting the OP to replace the compressor free of cost but they refused and he paid Rs.23,120/- on 21.8.2009 under protest for getting the compressor as well as condenser replaced. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In its written reply the OP-1 admitted the factual matrix.  It has also been admitted that the AC for the first time gave trouble on 9.4.2008 (sic 29.4.2008) which could be due to various factors like inadequate AC gas, choked evaporator, wear and tear etc. and that the compressor was replaced under warranty.  It has been denied that the air conditioner was suffering from the alleged manufacturing defect especially after the vehicle had run for more than 2½ years, therefore, there was no question of replacing the car.  It has been submitted that though the warranty period was over and full amount was to be charged, yet the compressor and AC condenser were replaced only at 50% cost.  It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to mention any manufacturing defect in the car.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             On 16.12.2009, ld. Counsel for OPs-2 & 3 suffered a statement adopting the written reply filed by OP-1.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.              There is no dispute about it that the vehicle was purchased on 3.11.2006, as is clear from the customer invoice Annexure P-1. The copy of the warranty conditions produced by the complainant shows that there was two years warranty on the Skoda new car, which would expire on 2.11.2008.  The complainant has also produced the case history of the vehicle which is Annexure P-2 showing that on 16.04.2007, the A.C. cooling was to be checked and it was a running repair.  Thereafter there was no problem in the A.C. till 04.05.2009.  However, on that day the vehicle was out of warranty.  Even then the OPs replaced the compressor without charging anything from the complainant mentioning the transaction as under warranty.  The mere fact that the OPs did not charge anything from the complainant on 04.05.2009 while replacing the compressor shall not extend the period of warranty beyond two years.  Even on that date the OPs were entitled to charge for the replacement of the compressor but they did not.  However subsequently again the compressor went out of order and as per letter dated 18.06.2009, the OPs told the complainant that the replacement cost would be Rs.60,000/- and they were willing to  replace it at  50% of the said cost.  The Learned Counsel for the OPs argued that it was being done to maintain good relations with the customers and they were providing this benefit from their own, even if the vehicle was out of warranty.  The complainant therefore has no right to get the parts replaced or repaired without making payment thereof. 

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.