Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 224.
Instituted on : 11.04.2017.
Decided on : 22.01.2019.
Surender, aged 30 years, son of Sh. Jagmander Singh, Resident of Village Madina (Gindhran), Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak, Mobile No. 9813963933.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Marketing Auto Motive Sector, Mahindra Towers, Akurli Road, Kandivli (E), Mumbai-400101, India, through its General Manager.
2 Lohchab Motors, Authorized Service Center of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Phogat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Mahindra XUV 500 FWD-W8-JAPWHT bearing registration No. HR-26BR-7797 on 13.04.2012 which is manufactured by OP No. 1. It is alleged that on 07.04.2015, the complainant got the said vehicle registered under shield Extended Warranty through shield optional extended warranty program, a program of OP No.1 and the said scheme was started from 15.04.2015 which is valid upto 150000 kilometers or till 15.04.2017 whichever is earlier and the said vehicle is under cover of the scheme. It is further alleged that in the vehicle corrosion problem started due to rusting and the OP No. 2 was apprised with the problem by the complainant. The corrosion problem was sent to OP No. 1 through mail and the complainant had approached the OP No. 2 with corrosion complaint on all doors and body but the officials of OP No. 2 did not give any response to him. That OP no.1 has told that such type of problems could not be corrected. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to replace all the rusted parts or alternately replace the vehicle with new one and to pay the amount Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension & harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to te complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the complainant alleged that his vehicle suffers from rusting issue. However, it has specifically been mentioned in the warranty policy set out in the owner’s booklet that deterioration of paint etc., is not covered under the warranty. It is also submitted that it is clearly mentioned in Sub Clause 2 of 10.1 of the Terms and Conditions of standard vehicle warranty, that “Any slight discrepancy in paint, chrome and trim is corrected during the PDI. Deterioration of appearance items and trim, due to normal exposure or use is not covered under terms of warranty.” It is further submitted that the complainant reported corrosion problem on 06.06.2015 i.e. after the expiry of standard warranty for the period of 3 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. from 13.04.2012 to 12.04.2015. Therefore, the complainant has miserably failed to make out a case against the manufacturer and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua the OP No. 1.
3. Whereas, OP No. 2 in its reply also submitted that it has specifically been mentioned in warranty policy that deterioration of paint etc. is not covered under warranty and also told about Sub Clause 2 of 10.1 of the Terms and Conditions of standard vehicle warranty in which deterioration of appearance items and trim due to normal exposure or use is not covered under terms of warranty and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP No. 2.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 29.10.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R2/1 & Ex.R2/3 and closed his evidence on dated 30.08.2018
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per terms and conditions of the policy placed on record as Ex.R2/2, condition no.2 clearly states that: “Any slight discrepancy in paint, chrome and trim is corrected during the PDI. Deterioration of appearance items and trim, due to normal exposure or use is not covered under terms of warranty.” As per terms and conditions for XUV 500 Shield Extended Warranty placed on record as Ex.R2/3, condition no.2.6 states that: “Maintenance Replacement operations not covered: Paint-Dents, scratches or other damages, Normal deterioration due to use & exposure, Blemishes, stone ships after delivery, Damage due to chemical or industrial fallout after delivery, Body corrosion not covered, Normal Deterioration due to exposure”. As such the complaint of the complainant i.e. corrosion problem in the vehicle is not covered under the warranty and the same is rightly repudiated by the opposite parties. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 15.12.2018 of Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in Joginder Balhara Vs. M/s Lochab Motors which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.01.2019
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
