Haryana

Panchkula

CC/142/2015

PUNEET GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA&MAHINDRA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	142 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	19.02.2016

                                                                                          

Puneet Garg s/o Sh.Anand Garg, R/o Flat No.502, GH-104, Rajhans Society, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Mahindra Tower, GM Bhosale Marg, Mumbai-400018.

2.       Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., through its Authorized person, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400039.

3.       Luxmi Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized person, Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor , Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.K.S.Arya, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Vaibhav Narang, Adv., for the Ops No.1 & 2.

                             Mr.Jatin Sherawat, Adv., for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased Mahindra Quanto C8 Model bearing Engine No. HUC6K13057 and chassis No. MA1YG2HUXC2K44540 from Op No.3 for an amount of Rs.7,68,559/- vide invoice No.INV13A001280 dated 18.10.2012. Sale Certificate dated 18.10.2012 supported by Form 22 was issued. Thereafter, the car was registered vide registration No.HR 03P 4043 on payment of Rs.32,000/-. At the time of purchasing the car, the Ops gave the two types of warranties. Firstly, one was standard warranty which was for the period of 2 years time or 50,000 kms, whichever is earlier and standard parts were included whereby if any standard parts became defective within a period of 2 years, the same would be replaced free of costs by the Ops. Second warranty was the emission warranty which was for the period of 3 years or 80,000 kms whichever is earlier and in the warranty, major parts in intake system i.e. exhaust system, fuel system, engine management, charging system, evaporative emission control etc. were covered whereby such parts were to be replaced free of costs during warranty period. From the very beginning, the car was regularly giving the serious problems in gear and steering system i.e. it remained defective. At the time of regular service, the complainant lodged complaint about the said problem and the engineers checked the problem & did some settings. But after driving some more days, the problem again persisted. The shocker system of the vehicle was also defective as it was giving serious jerks. After a number of repairs/settings, the vehicle could not remain in order, the back shocker of the car was also replaced by Op No.3 on 09.04.2013 at 19335 kms. Thereafter, another major part was replaced in the car in such a short span of purchase. On 20.11.2013 at 21688 kms, the steering rack of the car was also replaced by Op No.3. Threafter, the gear system of vehicle remained defective and on 05.03.2014 at 26288 kms, the Ops replaced clutch driven plate assy, clutch cover assy, bleeder CSC and concentric slave cylinder etc. but the problem was still existed. The complainant again took the vehicle to the workshop of Op No.3 and upon complaint, the technician averred that being a new system, it might take some time to get into the proper use after adjustment. After waiting for sufficient period, it was noticed that the problem was still persisting. In the regular services, the complainant had visited the Op No.3 and pointed out a number of problems in addition to the major problem. Every time, the service engineers/mechanics used to make some sort of settings in the car but to no avail. In the month of October, 2014, standard warranty of the vehicle was to be expired and there was a policy of the Ops for extension of warranty for the next 3^rd & 4^th year. The complainant requested the Ops to provide the extended standard warranty for the period of next 3^rd & 4^th years as prescribed in their policy but the Ops refused for the same. On 20.12.2014, the complainant again noticed that the car has started giving the pick-up problems. On 10.01.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.3 and after preliminary checking, the attendant doubted some problem and after thorough verification, it was found that the Turbo System was faulty. Thereafter, the complainant preferred to have a second opinion and took the vehicle to Swami Automobiles, Industrila Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh on 17.01.2015 which is also authorized service center of Ops No.1 and 2. After proper checking and verification of the vehicle, the service engineers found a big fault in the car i.e. Turbo System has been collapsed, which needed replacement. The complainant contacted the Ops for replacement of Turbo system but they refused for the same and told to get the replacement against payment of cost of the system and the cost was Rs.62,000/- plus labour charges. The complainant also sent legal notice dated 03.04.2015 to the Ops but to no avail.       This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops No.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the relationship between the manufacturer and dealer is on principal to principal basis and the OP No.2 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers and as such there is no privity of contract between the replying OP No.2 and ultimate customer of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commission of any act by its dealers. It is submitted that the dealer is a separate principal and not an agent of the manufacturer. It is submitted that the complaint is time barred as the complainant purchased the vehicle on 18.10.2012 and he filed the complaint on 13.07.2015 after passing two years from the purchase of vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the Ops No.1 and 2 are the manufacturer of various types of vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of Ops No.1 and 2. It is submitted that the manufacturer provided the 3 years emission warranty which was subject to certain terms and conditions. It is submitted that the benefits of emission warranty could be extended to the customer only if the vehicle in use was not complying with the standards as defined in CMVR Rules No.115 sub Rule 2, under normal use and service. It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 18.10.2012 and no job card has been placed on record to establish the fact that from the very beginning, the car had been giving serious problem in gear and steering system. It is submitted that till June, 2015, the vehicle had travelled 58514 Kms. It is submitted that complainant made a complaint that problem in steering was reported on 20.11.2013 for the first time i.e. after more than 1 year of the purchase of the vehicle and at that time the vehicle was under warranty and as such the power steering gear SC2WD has been replaced and Power steering oil was changed, thereafter, the same problem has never been reported. It is submitted that vehicle is a machine and every machine needed maintenance and wear & tear were part and parcel of every vehicle. It is submitted that on 05.03.2014, the complainant reported the clutch problem and the vehicle was inspected & found that the clutch driven plate SC and clutch cover SC including bleeder CSR concentric slave cylinder were replaced free of costs. It is denied that the car was brought for the same defect again after two or three days. It is denied that the gear system was giving any problem. It is submitted that the complainant did not make any payment for extended warranty, therefore, the same was not provided to him. It is submitted that in January, 2015 the warranty of vehicle was lapsed. The vehicle was checked and it was found that the Turbo System was to be replaced but the complainant did not get the same replaced. It is submitted that the function of turbo was just to the pick-up of the engine. It is submitted that in a defective turbo, vehicle would continue to function normally but with some reduced power. It is submitted that the vehicle was at par with the other new vehicle and was having no defect. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and has failed to place on record any document that the vehicle was being used by way of self employment, so the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer. It is submitted that the Op No.3 is the dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra and the warranty of the vehicle was given by the manufacturer. It is submitted that Op No.3 was dealing with Mahindra & Mahindra on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that benefits of emission warranty could be extended to the customer only if the vehicle in use was not complying with the standards as defined in CMVR Rules No.115 sub Rule 2, under normal use and service. It is submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 18.10.2012 and the complaint was filed on 13.07.2015 i.e. after two years and 9 months. It is submitted that the complainant has pointed out the problems in the shockers of the car and the same were replaced as the same was in warranty by the manufacturer. It is submitted that the complainant complaint of the steering giving noise as such the power steering gear SC2WD was replaced and power steering oil was changed, thereafter, the vehicle did not give any problem and the said faults were on account of usage of the vehicle and amounts to minor wear & tear. It is submitted that the clutch was giving problem, as such the inspection of the car was done and it was found that the clutch driven plate SC and clutch cover SC including bleeder CSR concentric slave cylinder were to be replaced and the same were replaced free of costs. It is denied that the complainant brought the car again for the same defect again after two or three days. It is denied that the gear system was giving any problem. It is denied that the goods which were replaced were old or that the Op No.3 had cheated the complainant. It is submitted that the problem which occurred in the vehicle was for on account of wear & tear and were not such problems that could be construed to be manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is submitted that as and when any problem has been pointed out by the complainant in the vehicle, the same has been rectified and if the parts were in warranty then they have been replaced free of costs. It is submitted that the Ops were willing to extend the warranty, however, subject to the payment additional costs, the complainant was asked to take the extended warranty in September, 2014 and reminder was given in October, 2014 but the complainant refused to take the same. It is denied that the standard warranty was refused to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant did not opt for the same. It is denied that the vehicle was having any inherit manufacturing defect. It is submitted that in January, 2015 the warranty of vehicle was lapsed. The vehicle was checked and it was found that the Turbo System was to be replaced but the complainant did not get the same replaced. It is submitted that the complainant however, did not come thereafter but instead sent the legal notice. It is submitted that the complainant came for the paid service on 27.06.2015 and got same done. It is submitted that the car of the complainant was subject to the test of the emission warranty but the same was not up to the mark and further the said turbo system was not covered under the emission warranty. It is denied that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect. It is denied that the Op No.3 had sold sub standard vehicle to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of Ops No.1 to 3 has been filed by the counsel for the complainant.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R3/A alongwith documents Annexure R3/1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully & minutely and also considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant and counsel for the Op No.3.
7.  The complainant claims that the Opposite Parties have failed to completely rectify the defect in the vehicle in question because of which the same is being repeatedly taken to their workshop for necessary repairs as it was giving regular and serious problems. The Opposite Parties, instead of having rectified the problem in its totality during the warranty period, changed the Clutch Driven Plate Assay Clutch Cover Assay Bleeder CSC and Concentric Slave Cylinder during the warranty period.  The complainant in the month of September, 2014 approached the OP No.3 for extension of standard warranty but it refused to provide the same on the ground that the vehicle had been repaired many a times during warranty.  It has been further argued that refusal of the extension of the warranty clearly shows that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle because in the month of January, 2015 within twenty days of last service on 20.12.2014 the vehicle started giving pickup problems and on checking it was narrated to the complainant that there was problem in Turbo and it needs replacement and the same will cost near Rs.70,000/- including labour charges etc. learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that during this problem the warranty period had expired and the Ops had further refused to extend the same, therefore, expiry of the warranty period, the complainant is left to bear the cost of such repairs for the life of the vehicle.
8. Per contra, the Opposite Parties, while defending themselves against the allegations of deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in the vehicle, have claimed that at the time of sale of the vehicle, the same was free of any defect and after timely free services, the problem faced by the complainant had occurred after a lapse of nearly three years and vehicle having travelled nearly 45871 kms. According to the Opposite Parties,though all the moving parts of the vehicle are prone to mechanical wear & tear, but even then as the vehicle was under warranty terms & conditions, all the necessary repairs were done and the spares parts were replaced without charging anything from the complainant. Since the problem in Turbo had occurred when the vehicle was out of warranty, therefore, the complainant has to bear the cost of the same and the Ops cannot be forced to extend the warranty and even the complainant cannot claim the extension of warranty as his right. The Opposite Parties have held their ground claiming no deficiency in service on their part and further claiming that as and when the vehicle was brought to their premises, the same was promptly attended to and the necessary repairs were done by replacing the required spare parts, without charging anything during warranty period. Furthermore, the complainant having alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle as well as use of low quality synchronizing rings has not lead any expert evidence in support of his contentions.  Therefore, the allegations with regard to manufacturing defect and deficiency in service have not been conclusively proved.
9.  We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant in October, 2012. Second and Third free services were done on 09.04.2013 and 09.10.2013 respectively as shown in Annexure C7 & Annexure C8. It is well established on the case file that the vehicle of the complainant was got repaired by the Ops time and again as and when it was brought to their premises free of costs during standard warranty period.  As is evident from the warranty terms & conditions, placed on record by the complainant Annexure C5 and Annexure C6, the complainant was entitled to a free service and spare parts for the first two years or 50000 kms. of the running of the vehicle, whichever is earlier after its sale as per standard warranty.  It is necessary to mention here that these running repairs were done on the vehicle in question after a gap of nearly 11 months of its last service on 05.02.2014 and the vehicle had covered the distance of 26288 kms. by that time meaning thereby that the vehicle had covered nearly 19500 kms. of its last repairs and during this period, nothing was reported by any means to the Opposite Parties about the dissatisfaction of the complainant, which could give rise to the grouse of the complainant against the Opposite Parties, which they preferred to ignore. As per Annexure C9 while repairing the vehicle, the Ops had replaced the Clutch system without charging anything from the complainant on 05.02.2014 when the vehicle had travelled 26288 KM.   The complainant has not lodged even a single complaint thereafter regarding the similar problem or other problem till 10.01.2015 and during this period the vehicle had travelled almost 19500 KM. As per annexure C17 during running repair it came to the notice that the vehicle required replacement of turbo. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 18.10.2012 therefore the complainant was entitled for free service and spare parts upto the month of October, 2014 as per standard warranty.  The vehicle of the complainant went out of order in the month of January 2015, which shows that the vehicle was out of warranty and it was open for the Ops to get the warranty extend or not and the complainant cannot claim or ask the same as his right. The opposite parties very well in their rights to ask for the cost of the part to be replaced beyond the warranty and no deficiency in service can be attributed towards such acts of the Opposite Parties.
10.  The allegations with regard to inherent manufacturing defect are not supported with any cogent evidence from the side of the complainant as he has even not get the vehicle mechanically examined from any expert. Therefore, in the absence of any expert opinion, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed in his responsibility to substantiate his allegations with regard to the manufacturing defect.  Therefore, no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties for which the complainant could be compensated. The verdict made in case law titled as  Skoda Auto India Pvt. Limited  Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Mahabirprasad decided on 24.08.2011 by Hon’ble National Commission in Revision petition No.1270 of 2011  is not disputed but the same is not helpful to the case of the complainant being rested on different footings.
11. The present is, thus, a case wherein no facet of the grievance of the complainant relates to the period for which the vehicle was under warranty. The first grievance pertaining to the post warranty period was reported thereafter only. If the complainant had a grievance about refusal to extend the warranty, he could have made a grievance thereof at that time itself which he did not do in this case.  
12.  In view of the above observations, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

19.02.2016        S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                            MEMBER           MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT