Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/79/2020

Poonam Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Auto Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Sahil Khunger, ADv.

12 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/79/2020
Date of Institution	:	30/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	12/12/2024

 

Poonam Sharma d/o Sh. Yoginder Paul Sharma, resident of House No.3080 FF, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh (represented by husband Gulshan Sharda).

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

1.Krishna Auto Sales, through its Managing Director, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002.

2.Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited, through its Managing Director, E-1, MIDC Industrial Area, Phase III, Village Nigoje, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune-410501.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Sahil Khunger, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Counsel for OP-1
	Sh. Kanwardeep Singh, Counsel for OP-2

       

ORDER BY BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA, MEMBER

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that in August, 2014, she purchased a Skoda Rapid car from OP-1 for total sale consideration of approximately ₹10.00 lacs and got the same registered vide registration No.CH01 AZ 0333 with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh on 22.9.2014.  On 27.12.2019, complainant approached OP-1 with specific problem of smoke emission in the morning.  On 28.12.2019 complainant received a call from the service advisor informing that three parts viz. glow plugs, cam seal and crank seal needed to be replaced estimating about ₹20,000/- and she also deposited 50% advance vide receipt dated 28.12.2019.  On 8.1.2020 complainant received another call from the service advisor informing that three more parts viz. timing belt, V belt and tensioner estimating ₹10,000/- also needed to be changed.  Thereafter on 10^th & 11^th January complainant received call regarding the vehicle in question being ready for delivery. The service adviser explained that the problem had been fixed and the complainant paid the balance amount of ₹16,300/- and also filled the customer satisfaction form.  However, when the complainant started the car, he found the same problem and left the car with OP-1.  On 14.1.2020 complainant received a call from the advisor that to fix the problem one more part i.e. EGR estimating around ₹50,000/- needed to replaced.  The complainant was shocked to know that even after spending huge amount the problem still persisted and, therefore, sought refund of the entire amount but the service advisor only offered ₹10,000/-.  Complainant repeatedly requested to either fix up the problem or refund the amount but with no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking various reliefs. 
2.        In its written version OP-1 did not dispute the factual matrix.  However, it is averred that the glow plug was found faulty and after replacement of the glow plug scanning to confirm the result of the repair in the VAS, it was reported that EGR cooler was faulty/leak.  As EGR had leaked, the coolant had entered in combustion chamber which caused defect in the engine as a result of which white smoke came out.  For replacing turbo and EGR a sum of ₹1,71,000/- was required to be paid by the complainant but the representative of the owner of vehicle failed to give his consent for the same.  It is further averred that the vehicle in question was not got serviced at regular intervals after February 2017 i.e. after 15,000 kms. Remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In its separate written version, OP-2 also did not dispute the factual matrix.  It is averred that the car in question was out of warranty as it was purchased in June 2014 and when it was given for repair on 27.12.2019 it had already run 1,87,000 and the cars are covered under warranty for a period of 2 years or upto 1,00,000 kilometers whichever is earlier.  It is further averred that the car in question was brought to the workshop of OP-1 for running repairs and also for issues of white smoke in the morning and oil consumption i.e. wear and tear issue which are the responsibility of the customer/complainant and are not covered under warranty. Hence all the repair works after warranty are on actual costs to be borne by the customer/complainant.  Since the issue of white smoke remained unresolved, permission was sought to open the engine upon which it was found that EGR cooler was not functioning properly. However, complainant did not allow the replacement of the EGR.  Remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
4.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own.
5.        Parties led evidence in support of their case.
6.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
7.        At the very outset it is pertinent to note that, during the pendency of the present consumer complaint, in view of the interim orders passed by this Commission as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, the car in question was handed over to the complainant after replacement of certain parts and doing necessary repairs and the OPs had also raised bills amounting to ₹1,39,490/-. 
8.        Indisputably the car in question is out of warranty and the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the same. Otherwise also, it stands proved on record that the same had already extensively run for 1,87,751 kms. as on 2.8.2021. That being so, if the car in question, during the course of time, has suffered some wear and tear and needed repair/replacement of parts, complainant is bound to pay for the same.
9.        The OPs in their written version have narrated in detail the circumstances which led to replacement of parts in the car in question including EGR. It is common knowledge that the repairers generally issue estimate qua the repair/replacement of parts in the vehicle and the same is tentative. If after replacement of certain parts/repair the complainant was not satisfied and something more needed to be done by the OPs, no fault can be attributed to the OPs and they were justified to charge for the same.  Moreover, if the complainant was not satisfied with the findings of the OPs qua the repair of the car in question, she could have taken vehicle back and got the work done from somewhere else.  It is also not the case of the complainant that she had been overcharged by the OPs for any part/labour etc. Hence, it is safe to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and she was bound to pay for the repair/replacement of parts etc. done at the end the OPs. 
10.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to fail and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The OPs are, however, at liberty to recover the pending due amount of repair/spare parts etc. from the complainant as per law.
11.        Since the order dated 10.9.2020 passed by this Commission already stands complied with by the OPs during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, therefore, EA/77/2020 filed by the complainant is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
12.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 12/12/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER