DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 315 of 9.8.2016
Decided on: 23.01.2018
Amrik Singh son of Sh.Daya Ram, resident of Village Roharjagir, PO Devigarh, Tehsil & District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Krishana Auto Sales, Authorized Dealer, Jalandhar-Phagwara GT Road, VPO Khajrola, District Kapurthala (Punjab).
2. Krishana Auto Sales Village Mitu Majra, Near Kasba Resort, Rajpura-Patiala Road, Patiala.
3. Krishana Auto Sales,177E, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh.
4. SKODA Auto India Private Limited, A-1/1, M.I.D.C.Five Star Industrial Arera, Shendra, Aurangabad-4312001.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Devinder Singh, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate,
counsel for Opposite parties No.1to3.
Sh.Pankaj Verma,Advocate, counsel for
Opposite party No.4
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Amrik Singh complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:
- To refund Rs. 10,78,674/-, the price of the car in question;
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
- To pay Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation and
- To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 18.12.2014, he purchased car make Skoda rapid ELE-AT 1.5 TDI CR bearing engine No.CWX008577, having registration No.PB-11BQ-9888 for a sum of Rs.10,78,674/- vide bill/invoice No.JLL-2014-15/000113 dated 18th December,2014, from OP No.2 having paid the entire payment to it. It is stated that within the short period, the said car started giving problems as it was consuming excess engine oil. On 11.5.2015, he got checked the car at the workplace of OP No.2 but the problem could not be rectified by it. At the asking of employees/engineers of OP no.2, he contacted OP no.3 i.e. the head office of Krishana Auto Sales, on 3.11.2015, who also could not rectify the problem of the car despite repeated repairs and the car was continuously giving trouble of consuming excess engine oil. It is stated that the OPs have sold the said vehicle after having installed a defective engine in the same in a deceitful manner and are liable to set right the vehicle in question or to replace the engine of the same with a new one. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the defect amounted to deficiency in service on their part . Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version.
In the written version filed by OPs No.1 to 3 preliminary objection has been taken stating therein that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever accrued against them as they are after sales service provider and not the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. Any deficiency on the part of the manufacturer cannot be attributed upon them. On merits , it is stated that on the annexures 2,3,4,5,6,7 annexed alongwith the complaint, there is no indication of problem of consumption of engine oil. On 12.8.2016 the said vehicle was checked regarding excess consumption of engine oil and was delivered on 23.8.2016 after refilling the new oil engine. It is stated that the question of replacing the engine only arises in case the problem persists inspite of the service undertook by the dealership. The question of installing a defective engine does not arise as there is no possibility of running the vehicle for more than 20,000 kms after having installed a defective engine in the new car. There is no deficiency of service on their part. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version filed by Op no.4 it has taken the preliminary objection interalia that the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act, that the complainant has not taken any expert opinion to support the allegation of manufacturing defect in the car, that the legal relationship between the OP no.4 and other OPs is on principal to principal basis, it does not receive the price from any individual customer. On merits it is reiterated that the complainant has not produced any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Further it is stated that the car in question was purchased by the complainant on 18th December 2014 and was reported for the first service in the month of December,2015 i.e. after one year and that too after covering the mileage of 15000KMs. It is stated that the consumption of higher amount of engine oil can be due to various factors like poor quality of oil , wear and tear of pistons and engine due to rough driving, oil leaks due to some accident or intentional sabotage by the complainant. It is also stated that the relationship between the OP no.4 and other OPs is of principal to principal basis, and OPno.4 can not held liable for the acts of the other OPs.There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C23 and closed the evidence of the complainant. The complainant also tendered the documents from Exs.C24 to C33 by way of additional evidence. No rebuttal to the additional evidence of the complainant has been lead by the OPs.
The ld. counsel for OPs No.1to 3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Kuljinder Kler, GM of M/s Krishna Auto Sales, Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Sumit Passi, Partner of M/s Krishna Auto Sales, Chandigarh and closed the evidence of OPs No.1to3.
The ld. counsel for OP no.4 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPC, affidavit of Ms.Swapna Jain, Company Secretary of M/s Skoda Auto India Ltd. alongwith documents Ex.OP1 & OP2 and closed the evidence of OP no.4.
6. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the car in question was consuming excess engine oil from the very beginning of its purchase. Even after repeated repairs and replacement of the required parts, the said problem could not be rectified, which clearly shows that OP No.2 in connivance with Op no.1 have sold a defective car to the complainant. Therefore, the OPs are liable either to replace the defective car with new one or the refund the price thereof.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for OPs 1 to 3 has submitted that in the job sheets dated 11.5.2015, 24.10.2015, 27.10.2015 &3.11.2015 Exs.C2 to C5, there is no mention about the problem of excessive consumption of engine oil. Even in the job sheet dated 2.12.2015, Ex.C8 there is no mention of higher consumption of engine oil. The complainant had complained about the higher consumption of engine oil for the first time on 12.8.2016 and after rectifying the defect and refilling the engine oil, the car in question was delivered to the complainant on 23.8.2016. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the car it could not have covered the mileage of 20,000kms. From the aforesaid job sheets, the plea of the complainant that the Ops No.1&2 had sold to him the defective car gets falsified. Thus the question of replacing the car in question with the new one or refund thereof does not arise at all.
8. It may be stated here that on 4.5.2017, the ld. counsel for Ops no.1to3 has suffered a statement, that needful was done to set the vehicle in question right and in order to ascertain the cause of higher consumption of engine oil, if any, the complainant could have a test drive of the car in question upto the mileage of 330 kms. In case, during the test drive, if any damage caused to the engine of the car then the defects would be removed either by repairing or replacing the defective parts, free of cost by the Ops. On the said date, the ld. counsel for the complainant has also suffered a statement that complainant would take the delivery of the car. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that, on 18.5.2017 the complainant went to the workshop of OP no.3 at Chandigarh for taking the delivery of the vehicle, for test drive but its Manager told him that the vehicle in question was not ready and asked him to come on 19.5.2017. Even on 19.5.2017, he was again told to come for taking the delivery of the car on 20.5.2017. In this regard, the complainant has also sent an e-mail, Ex.C-24 to Op no.4. After taking the delivery of the car in question, the complainant got filled 4.3LTR engine oil in it, as is evident from the retail invoice Ex.C25. However, after test drive, on checking the car by OP no.3, the volume of the engine oil was found 3.9ltr only, meaning thereby that the car in question had consumed excessive engine oil. Even after repeated repairs and replacement of the defective parts, this problem could not be rectified, which shows that the vehicle in question was having inherent manufacturing defect and needs replacement.
9. From the invoice dated 23.5.2017, Ex.C-25, it is evident that the complainant got filled 4.300 ltr. of engine oil from the OP No.3 for which he had paid Rs.4040/-. From the repair order dated 26 May,2017, Ex.C28, issued by Op no.3, it is evident that after the test drive, the complainant took the car to the workshop of OP no.3 for checking of engine oil consumption. On the said repair order, it is mentioned that drained engine oil found and the volume of engine oil has been mentioned as 3.9 Ltr. From the said repair order, it is clear that due to some defect in the engine there was drainage of engine oil. Since the problem of excessive consumption of engine oil/ drainage of engine oil occurred, during the warranty period, which could not rectified even after repeated repairs, therefore, as per terms and conditions of the warranty, the defective engine of the car needs to be replaced, free of costs . However, the complainant is not entitled to get a new car in replacement or refund of the price thereof as prayed for by the complainant. It may be stated here that the Op No.4 being the manufacturer and OP no.2 being the seller are liable to replace the defective engine with the new one, free of cost . The Ops No. 2&4 are also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. Since no deficiency of service has been proved against Ops No.1&3, therefore, the complaint filed against Ops No.1&3 is liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against Ops No.1&3 and partly allow the same against Ops No.2&4 and they are directed in the following manner:
The OP no.4 is directed to provide the new engine with fresh warranty, free of cost to Krishana Auto Sales, Patiala i.e. OP no.2 for replacement of the defective engine of the car in question, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order . After receiving the new engine from OP no.4, the OP no.2 shall replace thedefective engine with the new engine, free of cost, within 10 days . The Ops No.2&4 are also directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant and pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 23.01.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
