Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/673/2022

Shabnam Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishna Auto Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Ashim Aggarwal

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/673/2022
Date of Institution	:	15.7.2022
Date of Decision	:	7/3/2024

 

1. Shabnam Aggarwal, D/o Late Sh. B.N. Aggarwal, R/o House No. 60, Sector 4. Chandigarh-160001

 

2 Kiran Aggarwal, IAS (Retd.), w/o Late Sh. BN Aggarwal, R/o House No 60, Sector 4, Chandigarh-160001

...Complainants

 

Versus

 

1. Krishna Auto Sales, 177 E. Industrial Area, Phase 1 Chandigarh through its Partner Mr. Sumit Passi.

2. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd E-1, MIDC, Industrial Area Phase III, Village Nigoje, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed. Pune-410501.

3. Mr. Piyush Shailendra Arora, Managing Director, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd E-1, MIDC, Industrial Area, Phase III, Village Nigoje. Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune-410501.

4. Mr. Mojmir Hajek, Director, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. E-1. MIDC, Industrial Area, Phase III, Village Nigoje, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune-410501

 

5. Mr. Zac Holis, Director, Sales and Marketing, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. E-1, MIDC, Industrial Area, Phase III, Village Nigoje, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune-410501

 

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1 (through VC)
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs No. 2 to 5.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Skoda Rapid Ambition 1.0 TSI MT Patrol car manufactured by OP No.2 from OP No.1  for sale consideration of Rs.9,69,000/-  On 15.2.2021 vide invoice Annexure
C-1.  on 1.7.2021 when the car had hardly run 800 Kms the driver seat of the car started vibrating and the engine was also missing/vibrating which made the car not drivable as there was no pickup or  acceleration.  The  said defect  were reported on the customer helpline  of OPs and it was advised that the car be sent to OP No.1. The car was sent to the dealership and after some checks  was returned on 3.7.2021 and it was stated that the system had been reset and the warning light was no longer illuminated and even no job card was issued by the OP No.1. It is  alleged that thereafter many a time various problems occurred in the car and the same were reported to the OPs and even after many repairs done the same again re-occurred due to which the complainant had to face a lot problems in her day to day travel and the Ops did not provide any alternative car during the period the car was with them for repairs.  It is further alleged that the car in question  has been sent  9 times to the garage of OPs within a span of 1 year 4 months for repairs and as such the there is manufacturing defect in the car in question as the same is not repairable. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1  in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  The answering OP undertakes the maintenance  and service of the vehicles manufactured by the OP No.2 either at the dictation of owners of the ear or the manufacturer and in the present ease as and when the complainants approached the OP No.2, the needful was done as required from the dealership. The appearance of the warning lights does not affect the roadworthiness of the vehicle as it has covered more than 5000 Kms from the date of purchase. The issue of appearance of warning lights is because of the software problem which needs to be resolved and OP No.2 has undertaken to resolved the same but the complainants are not consenting for the same, therefore, the dispute if any exists between the complainants and Op No.2 who is the manufacturer of the car. The services which are required to be rendered by the answering OP to the complainants have been performed with due diligence and promptness, therefore, the answering OP is not deficient in providing the services to the complainants at any point of time Whenever the car has been brought to the dealership it has been delivered in fault free condition after doing the needful. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 to 5 in their joint reply denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as there is no expert opinion on record. It is stated that the allegations of the complainant are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is further submitted that the car in question was purchased in February 2021, but the emission indication came up in the month of July 2021, It is submitted that on 23.07.2021 after diagnosis the Charcoal Canister was replaced and the car was delivered in fault free condition. Thereafter the complainants reported for the first free service on 1st February 2022 and also mentioned about the W/Shop Emission indication and airbag indication. During GFF (Scanning Process) no fault code was found and only low battery was detected and the same was recharged and the vehicle was duly delivered with no fault. Thereafter again the complainant reported on 22.04.2022 about the W/Shop Emission indication, although there was no problem but the Charcoal Canister and Purge Valve were replaced Furthermore the Technical DISS query was raised and the Canister Valve and fuel pipe were also replaced as per ESLA guidelines and the vehicle was duly delivered without any fault. Thereafter again on 15.06.2022 a concern was raised by the complainant and the same was duly rectified too. The Car is now in the possession of the complainant and the complainant. The complainant has not brought any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove that there was a manufacturing defect. Furthermore all the repairs were conducted after consultation with the complainant and after getting his approval. Denying any deficiency on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complainant has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainants is that the vehicle purchased by him started giving problem relating to warning light of exhaust  control system, engine malfunction light and the same could not be fixed by the OPs inspite of taking the vehicle repeatedly 9 times  for repairs within a short span of time.
8. On perusal of the complaint, and reply of OPs, there is no doubt that the vehicle faced many a times problems relating to malfunctioning of warning lights. Annexure C/31, reveals that the OPs have taken the stand that the said problem is unlikely to affect the safely, drivability and performance of the  car in question. However, in the same mail they have mentioned that they escalated this scenario in the company and it has been observed that this fault needs further investigation and have provided all the required technical details. 
9. The OPs have further taken a stand that the complainant has not taken any expert opinion  in support of his allegations  of defect in the car in question. In our opinion, no expert opinion is required to certify that the car is irreparable and has inherent manufacturing defects as the OPs themselves have admitted that they have escalated the scenario in the company and it has been observed that the fault needs further investigation. Moreover, the bare fact that a brand new car which was taken to the workshops number times for repairs itself indicates that  there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
10. On perusal of Annexure C-5 the Owner’s Manual at page 46, it is quite apparent that ignoring warning lights may lead to serious personal injury or damage to the vehicle.  The relevant portion of the same is as under:-

“Warning

Ignoring illuminated warning lights and related messages or instructions in the display of the instrument cluster may lead to serious personal injury or damage to the vehicle.”

11. In view of above any prudent person would not drive the vehicle once warning light  is on, risking his life as well as life of other co-passengers.  
12. Thus from the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that the car suffered from inherent manufacturing defects and was required to be replaced with a new one or refund of the price of the same  was required to be made by the OP after deducting depreciation amount.  However by not replacing the car or  making refund of the price of the car  the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service and are indulged in unfair trade practice. Thus the complaint is liable to be allowed.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of the car after deduction of 5% amount therefrom towards depreciation of the car, with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the instant complaint till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.  After compliance of the aforesaid directions by the OPs the complainant shall return the car in question to the OPs and the OPs shall collect the same at their own risk and costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
17.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member sd/-
7/3/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member