DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 277 of 2008 Date of Inst:14.03.2008 Date of Decision:01.04.2010 Ish Kapoor son of Sh.Hans Raj Kapoor aged about 41 years r/o # 3, Block 52, Sector 6, Parwanoo, District Solan (H.P.). ---Complainant V E R S U S1. M/s A.B.Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director having its Office at Plot No.53, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.2. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director having its Office at S.P.Koil Post Chengalpattu 603204, India.---Opposite PartiesQUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Vikas Jain, Adv. for complainant Sh.Aftab Singh, Adv. for OP-1 Sh.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for OP-2. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Ish Kapoor has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Replace the car with a new one of the same model or in the alternative to deliver the car after removal of patent and latent defects without charging any charges. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. ii) To pay Rs.1 lac as damages due to non-delivery of the vehicle. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. iv) To pay interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Ford Endeavour SUV car from OP-1 (Dealer of OP-2) for a sum of Rs.14,15,000/- vide invoice dated 01.02.2007 by raising loan from ICICI Bank. The complainant availed extended warranty for a period of one year after the expiry of standard warranty by paying Rs.9925/- as additional charges to OP-2 vide receipt (Annexure C-3). According to the complainant, the vehicle in question was having manufacturing defect as the hub of said vehicle broke down enroute on 14.11.2007 due to which the driver of the car lost his control and car went into the sewerage connected with the road. The air bags provided in the car for the safety of the passengers did not open due to which the complainant and his family members suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment. The complainant informed OPs regarding the defects but they took the matter leniently and even failed to provide a towing van. According to the complainant since 14.11.2007, the vehicle in question was lying in the custody of OPs for repairs. But neither the car has been repaired so far nor the OPs are willing to replace the same with a new vehicle despite the fact the car is still under warranty. It has further been pleaded that due to non delivery of the car, he has suffered damages to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs. According to complainant OPs have kept the car in their custody without rectifying the defects and replacing the same. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP-1, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 01.02.2007 and the same is covered under warranty. As per the terms and conditions of the warranty, only those parts are liable to be replaced free of cost which suffer from manufacturing defects. It has been pleaded by the OP-1 that as and when the complainant approached OP-1 for repairs of the car the same were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant free of cost. It has further been pleaded that on 14.11.2007 the vehicle met with an accident. The complainant was given detailed estimate of Rs.3,72,190/- for repairs of the vehicle as the accidental loss is not covered under warranty clause. The fact that the hub broke due to manufacturing defect has been specifically denied. According to OPs, the car has been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Insurance Company has refunded Rs.2,52,000/- to OP-1 under intimation to the complainant. The complainant has also taken the delivery of the car after making payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,19,000/-. The car in question has covered 31289 kms as on 14.11.2007. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, the car in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In its separate written statement, OP-2 took almost identical objections as taken by OP-1. It has been pleaded that the air bags of the vehicle will only inflate when the vehicle suffers a head on collision and will get activated only when the air bag crash sensors detect a frontal impact of greater than the moderate force. A number of preliminary objections have been taken by OP-2 such as the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the vehicle in question is being used for commercial purpose. It has further been pleaded that the car in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. and the written arguments filed on behalf of OPs. 6. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect in the hub due to which it broke while he was going from Roop Nagar to Balachaur. According to the learned counsel, as a result of this, the car went into the sewerage connected with the road and suffered extensive damage. According to the learned counsel, it was obligatory on the part of OP to replace the old car with a new car as the same was under warranty. 7. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that there was no manufacturing defect in the hub. The hub broke due to external impact as a result of some accident. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of warranty, OPs are not liable to replace the same or to repair the car free of cost. Admittedly, the car had covered a distance of about 31289 kms till the hub was broken. From the service record as well as the job sheets place on record, it is apparent that there was no specific complaint regarding the hub prior to the accident. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the hub, the car could not have covered such a long distance of 31289 kms. 8. No report of any expert has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that there is some manufacturing defect in the hub of the car. In these circumstances, the self-serving deposition of the complainant cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the complainant has taken the delivery of the car after its repairs to his entire satisfaction and major part of the bills for repairs has been paid by the insurance Company. It has been deposed by Sh.G.Venkat Ramesh Kumar, Senior Associates of M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) that the car was repaired in time but the complainant has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,19,000/-. Therefore, the car has not been delivered to him. 9. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that there were some manufacturing defects in the car in question or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/-01.04.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER.
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
