| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.397/2013 M/s Capital Builders Through its Authorised Representative Shri Virat Manchanda J-9, Kailash Colony New Delhi-110048.…..COMPLAINANT Vs. 1. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation HM Mitushi Motors Through Hindustan Motors Ltd. Birla Building, 10th Floor, 9/1 R.N. Mukharjee Road 2.Excel Motors B-11/31, Mohan Co-op. Industries Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi-110044. …..RESPONDENTS Date of Institution-30.07.2013 Date of Order-16.02.2024 O R D E R RITU GARODIA-MEMBER - The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
- The complainant is a real estate developers under the name and style of M/s Capital Builders. The complainant purchased a Lancers Cedia Car bearing registration no. DL-3CAJ-9558 for Rs.9,52,650/- manufactured by OP1. The vehicle is being used by Shri Virat Manchanda, authorised representative of the complainant i.e. The Capital Builders.
- On 03.10.2012, it is alleged that the engine of the car got damaged due to rain. The vehicle was sent to OP2, the authorized service centre of OP1. The complainant was assured by OP2 that there is no difference in a factory installed engine and service centre replaced engine. The complainant agreed to the replacement. After few days, he was informed that his vehicle was ready for delivery. During test drive, the vehicle stopped in the middle of the road and failed to start. The car was again taken back to service centre. OP2 requested the complainant to take another test drive in presence of the technician. After few minutes’ drive the car once again stopped.
- After few days, OP2 again requested the complainant to take the delivery of the car. Again, the car stopped during the test drive. The complainant left the car with OP2. The complainant was informed by OP2 that a new engine has been installed. The complainant paid Rs.3,44,573/- and took delivery of the car.
- The complainant started facing new problems with the car: The fuel efficiency was low, RPM was high. After a week of the delivery of the vehicle the car again stopped in the middle of the road. The complainant towed the car to OP2. The complainant sent repeated emails to OP for repair of car but to no avail. The car is still in the possession of OP2.
- The complainant prays for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.2,50,000/- towards cost of the car, Rs.3,44,573/- for bill of engine and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- OP-1 in its reply submits that it is duly registered company engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling of various types of passenger cars, utility vehicles and other modes of automobiles.
- OP1 submits that complainant has purchased one Lancer Cedia Car from the Excel Motors, OP2, on 27.12.2006. Thereafter, the complainant had used the subject vehicle very smoothly without any complaint for almost about six years.
- After expiry of the warranty period, the complainant requested OP-2 for a change of engine. The engine assembly was changed on 19.9.2012. OP-1 submits that the vehicle has covered 5000 kms in a span of 4 months as can be seen from odometer reading. As per the job card, the subject vehicle has driven more than 1,00,000 km. before the replacement of engine. The complainant signatures on job card signified that OP has promptly attended to all problems faced by the complainant. It is submitted that the average will increase over a period of time.
- OP-1 submits that it is the manufacturer and relation between OP-1 and OP-2 on principle to principle basis. OP-1 denied any privity of contract with the complainant. OP-1 also highlight the necessity of expert evidence for proving manufacturing defect. OP-1 prays for dismissal of complaint.
- Notice was issued to OP-2 who failed to file the reply. OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated. 6.8.2015.
- Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following document:
- An authority letter on behalf of deponent is Ex.Cw-1/1.
- A copy of invoice of car is exhibited as Ex.Cw-1/2.
- A copy of invoice showing the amount of Rs.3,44,573/- is exhibited as Ex.Cw-1/3.
- Copies of mails are exhibited as Ex.Cw-1/4.
- Copies of legal notice, postal receipts and courier receipts are exhibited as Ex.Cw-1/5 to Cw-1/9.
- The Commission has considered the material and documents on record. The complainant has filed an invoice from OP-2 dated 6.11.2012. It can be seen from the said invoice that the car was purchased on 27.10.2006 and has run 97,836.00 km. The said invoice shows that the complainant has paid Rs.3,44,573/- towards repair and replacement of parts in the said vehicle.
- OP-1 has filed various job sheets pertaining to year 2006, 2008, 2011. Jobsheet dated 23.7.2012 and 19.9.2012 show that there was some problem with the engine and starting issues were also mentioned in the subsequent jobsheets.
- Thereafter the engine was replaced vide invoice dated 06.11.2012. Jobsheet dated 23.11.2012 reveals that there were some problems regarding engine oil light and engine RPM. Jobsheet dated 6.12.2012 reveals that the starting problem is escalating and “Crank Angle Sensor Changed” and the vehicle had run 98789.00 km.
- Email dated 4.3.2013 from OP-1 to complainant acknowledges the receipt of complaint regarding the said vehicle. The trail-mail by complainant shows that the complainant had visited the service centre four/five times citing problems of oil, engine light, low RTL and stalling of vehicle in the middle of the vehicle. It is stated in the same mail that the car is still at the service centre.
- The legal notice by complainant dated 25.4.2013 requests OP to get car in dispute removed as it has become a piece of junk with no utility.
- The complainant in the complaint filed before this Commission has highlighted that the complainant had sent their car to OP for repair and he had refused to take the delivery as it is piece of junk. It is evident that the engine and other parts were replaced on 06.11.2012. The car was subsequently returned to the workshop as indicated through jobsheet dated 23.11.2012 filed by OP1. The said jobsheet outlines issues concerning engine oil light and engine RPM. Once again, the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 06.12.2012 due to starting problems, resulting in the replacement of a crank angle sensor. Despite the engine replacement, the vehicle failed to run even 1000 km in a month.
- It is clear that even after paying Rs.3,44,000/- the complainant’s vehicle was not running properly. Hence, we find OP2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to refund:
- Rs.3,44,000/- with 7% interest from the date of repair till its realizations.
- Rs.25,000/- as compensation, mental harassment, agony and physical inconvenience.
- Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
- File to be consigned to record room. Orders to be uploaded and complied with within 30 days from the date of order.
| |
