Haryana

StateCommission

CC/568/2017

PANKAJ ALMADI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AUDI INDIA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV AGGARWAL

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                   Consumer complaint No.568 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 13.09.2017

                                                         Date of Final hearing: 22.08.2022

Date of pronouncement: 23.11.2022

 

Pankaj Almadi S/o Late Sh.Jai Kishan Almadi, r/o H.No.1056, Sector-14, Gurgaon, Haryana.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Audi , a division of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. Silver Utopia, 4^th Floor, Cardinal Gracious road, Chakala Andheri (East), Mumbai 400099, through its Director/Authorized person.
2. M/s Audi Gurgaon, Corporate Office: Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd., Orchid Centre, 2^nd Flooe Golf Course Road,Gurgaon,Haryana122001, through its Director/Authorized person.
3. Audi Service Gurgaon, concore, Plot No.288A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016, through its proprietor/Authorized person.

…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the  opposite party No.1.

                   Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 ex parte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           The brief facts of the case are that  the complainant purchased a car as Audi 6 model , bearing registration No.UK 07 AT 1717 from the channel partner/authorized  distributor of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.2. From the day one, the complainant was facing suspension issue in the said sedan .  He sent his car a number of times to the authorized service centre  i.e. OP NO.3, but the same was not rectified despite regular services. Finally when even after two years of purchase, the above stated suspension issue in the said vehicle could not be resolved so complainant submitted detailed narration of the said fault alongwith the vehicle for service and necessary repair before OP No.3. The complainant sent email dated 06.10.2016 followed by another of 10.10.2016 about status of service and repairs. Vide another mail dated 11.10.2016, OP No.3 reverted that during the repair they have found the front LHS upper guide link was got fitted from some other mechanic so the same could not be fixed under the warranty. However, the vehicle of the complainant was still under warranty period, but, OPs demanded amount for replacement of the said part. He raised protest to the senior officials of the OPs, but, did not receive any satisfactory reply. OP No.3 claimed that they are changing the part in question as a good will gesture. The complainant was compelled to pay Rs.23,601/- as repair charges, including the costs of some  additional parts whereas the vehicle in question was still in warranty period so, the complainant was not liable to pay alleged amount. Similarly the factum of OP No.3 forcing the complainant to pick the said unrepaired vehicle from its premises and imposing parking charges  @ Rs.500/- per day was totally uncalled for. The vehicle was having manufacturing defect which was not curable.  Faced with this situation, the complainant had also sent legal notice dated 13.01.2017, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence this complaint.

2.      Notice was issued to the OPs, but, none appeared on behalf of the OPs and were therefore, proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.12.2017.   Against ex parte order , OP NO.2 and 3 filed First Appeal No.576 of 2018  before the Hon’ble National Commission.   The Hon’ble National Commission has allowed the appellants to participate in the proceedings of complaint vide order dated 27.04.2018, but none has appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and 3 but   Opposite party No.1 filed written statement of defence.   It was submitted that OP NO.1 that it was only liable to limited extent for repairs and replacement of parts in the car purchased by complainant. The warranty policy was subject to certain terms and conditions and was not absolute. Further OP No.1 alleged that details relating to car viz. its registration no., model, registration certificate, warranty or extended warranty were all matters of record. The car was brought to the workshop for the first time for repair of suspension in the year 2015, after covering a mileage of more than 60,000 kms and the issue was duly rectified by the dealer.  The OP submitted that complainant has got repaired/services his car from unauthorized service centre and got installed a non genuine part (outside upper guide link) in the car.  However OP advised the complainant to get the said  non-genuine part replaced with a genuine part in order to permanently rectify the suspension issue. The replacement of non genuine parts was not covered under warranty or extended warranty. On 07.10.2016, the car reported in the workshop of the dealer  for repairs relating to some noise coming from front and rear suspension, rear arm rest to be replaced, to check right hand side view mirror, side underbody shield missing, gear box shield missing and the front cup holder broken. Vide mail dated 26.11.2016, the complainant approved Rs.23,000/- for carrying out the required repairs. He again visited on 07.0.2017 for fresh concerns related to noise coming from Engine compartment. The car was repaired and kept ready for handling it over back to the complainant on 22.01.2017. However, the complainant did not collect the car from the workshop of OP NO.2. The car had covered a mileage of 89,904 kms, the complainant was making extensive and rough use of the car from the date of purchase. Therefore, the allegations of complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the car were totally false, baseless and without any merits.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, so the complaint deserves dismissal.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant-Pankaj Almadi in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

4.      On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, O.P No.1 has also tendered the affidavit of Mr.Umesh V Khadpe Chief Manager Legal Ex.OP1/A  alongwith documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/3 and closed the evidence on  behalf of OP No.1.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by        Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant as well as Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                It is not disputed that the car was purchased by the complainant from the OPs. It is also not disputed that details relating to car viz. its registration no., model, registration certificate, warranty or extended warranty are all admitted being matters of record.  Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that the some weired noise was coming out from suspension system despite OP having already rectified the same thing. It means that the service centre has not repaired the vehicle in question  properly.  Another email from service advisor informed him that they could not fix front LHS upper guide link which was under warranty as the same part was already got fitted from some unauthorized person.   All the emails shows that there was suspension problem in the car.  As per Ex.C-6 shows that as goodwill gesture of the company,  OP has replaced the upper guide link arm. Number of emails shows that there was problem in the car.   Perusal of the file shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question although the company was ready to replace the engine as per email sent by service  advisor.   Since there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle but nevertheless it is the duty of the OPs to hand over the vehicle to the complainant in road worthy and motorable condition.   In view of the above, OPs are directed to repair the vehicle in question free of costs and hand over the vehicle in question to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing of order.  The OPs are also directed for not to charge Rs.23,000/- from the complainant as repair charges.  The vehicle in question is to be repaired with the consent of the complainant free of costs. In case, there is a breach in handing over the vehicle properly mortorable within the stipulated period  of  30 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the one year further warranty free of costs.  The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty Five Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. In view of the above modification, the appeal stands disposed off.

7.      Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

8.      A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.      File be consigned to record room.

23rd  November, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)