Haryana

Karnal

89/2013

Shamsher Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malwa Automobile Privat Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Kamboj

16 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.89 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.14.02.2013

                                                               Date of decision:16.03.2017

 

Shemsher Singh, resident of village and post office Manjura Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.   

1. Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. NH-1,119/4, K.M.Stone, G.T.Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

2. Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B-19, Ranjangaon MIDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon-412210 Taluka-Shirur, District Pune.

 

                                                                                  ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                    Opposite party no.2 exparte.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he has purchased one Punto Car from opposite party no.1 on 27.7.2009 for an amount of Rs.6,29,700/-. The car was having initial warranty of two years, but extended warranty for further three years was provided to him. Thus, the car carried the warranty from 28.7.2009 to 28.7.2014. Since the very beginning there was noise in the suspension of the car, which was required to be removed by the opposite parties free of cost, but the opposite party no.1 charged an amount of Rs.17,460/- from him for removal of the said defect. Apart from the problem of suspension there was noise in the steering and defect in the head lights. Moreover, the car was giving the fuel average of 13 kilometers per litre, whereas the opposite parties had assured that the vehicle would give the average of 23 kilometers per litre. He had taken the car to the opposite parties number of times, but the opposite parties could not remove the said defects of the vehicle. Fog-lamp and D-fogar were not working property due to which he was not able to drive the car in night hours. The opposite parties could not remove the said defect despite keeping the car for two days. Infact, there was manufacturing defect in the car, therefore, the same required replacement.  He sent notice to the opposite parties and in response to the same they sent letter dated 11.4.2012 asserting that the vehicle was out of manufacturing warranty. He again sent reminder to the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against it, vide order dated 3.5.2013.

3.                Opposite party no.1 filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexacious.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the car was having initial warranty of two years, which was extended for further period of two years and not for three years as claimed by the complainant. The warranty policy provided by the manufacturer covered only manufacturing defect and did not cover the wear and tear problems, which were inflicted on the vehicle by normal use. Suspension of the vehicle is such a part which is prone to wearing out after a use of certain Kilometers. Driving habits and the road condition are also the factors affecting the suspension. The complainant brought the vehicle with suspension problem and it was explained to him that the said repair was not covered under the warranty as the problem occurred due to wear and tear. The estimate of expenses of repair was also given to the complainant and repair of the suspension was carried out with his consent on paid basis. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get refund of the invoice amount regarding the repair of suspension, which was wear and tear problem. The problem of suspension was reported by the complainant when the vehicle had covered more than 40000 kilometers. No noise was reported from the suspension and as such there was no manufacturing defect. Regarding the poor average, the complainant never made any complaint. Even otherwise, average depends upon the maintenance of the vehicle, inflation in tyres, down shifting, maintenance of Constant speed, Engine RPM, Driving habits, Traffic Pattern and Road Condition. The complainant never made any complaint regarding headlight problems. It was only mentioned on one or two occasion that the headlights required to be focused as the same required minor adjustment. No complaint was ever made by the complainant at the workshop of opposite party no.1 regarding Fog-lamp and D-fogar. The complainant has put forward a false and concocted story just to claim compensation. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to 22 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of S.K.Malhotra Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/D  have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased one Punto car from opposite party no.1 on 27.7.2009. The initial warranty for the car was two years, which was got extended by the complainant for further period of two years. As per the case of the complainant there were problems of suspension, noise in steering, headlights, Fog-lamp and D-fogar, which were on account of manufacturing defect in the car. The opposite party no.1 repaired the suspension and charged an amount of Rs.17,460/- from him despite the fact that the car was under warranty period. The opposite party no.2 has submitted that suspension was repaired as the problem was on account of usual wear and tear and not due to any manufacturing defect, therefore, the same was not covered under warranty and repair was carried out on payment basis.

8.                The opposite parties have produced the documents Ex.OP1/B regarding parts covered under warranty. The complainant has produced the copy of the performa invoice dated 11.7.2012 Ex.C14 regarding the charges of repair paid by him to opposite party no.1. A perusal of Ex.C14 and the document regarding the parts covered under the warranty clearly indicates that the Clutch Slave Cylinder was covered under the warranty, but regarding the same the opposite party no.1 had charged an amount of Rs.2322.21 apart from labour of Rs.220 from the complainant. No doubt some parts of the Clutch were covered upto 30000 kilometers, but no limit regarding use of the vehicle was mentioned in respect of the Clutch Slave Cylinder. Thus, it is quite clear that the opposite party no.1 had charged illegally an amount of Rs.2322.21+220 from the complainant regarding Clutch Slave Cylinder, despite the fact that the same was covered under the warranty. Consequently, the opposite party no.1 was deficient in service in this regard. Document Ex.C10 shows that the complainant also made complaint regarding headlight, Fog-lamp and D-fogar also. The engineer of the opposite party no.1 reported that the BCM control unit was faulty, therefore, the defects were not removed. Infact, body control module was covered under the warranty as is evident from Ex.OP1/B. Refusal to remove the said defects by opposite party no.1 also amounted to deficiency in service.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.2322+220=2542/- to the complainant and replace BCM Control Module with new one.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.03.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member