DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Nabinder Singh Randhawa s/o Late Shri Surinder Pal Singh, resident of House No. 333, Sector 33, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

M/s Dynamic Motors, a Unit of RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                    MEMBER

Argued By:       Sh. R.S. Raj, Adv. and Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Adv. for the Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The Complainant had purchased a second hand Chevrolet Captive (Diesel) Car (Make:2008) from one Sh. Vimal Kumar Khosla on 02.06.2011. He has stated that he has paid `10,50 lacs for the said vehicle. The Complainant was told that the Car had developed some defect in the turbocharger and hence it was replaced by the Opposite Party at a cost of `71,193.78/- vide invoice dated 31.01.2011. The meter reading recorded on 02.06.2011 by the Opposite Party was 83333.

                    Immediately, after the purchase of the said car, it again developed some fault and was taken to the Opposite Party for repair. The repaired car was handed over to the Complainant by the Opposite Party on 30.06.2011. The Complainant was shocked to see that the turbocharger had been replaced again and he was made to pay `1,07,427/- vide invoice dated 30.06.2011. The meter reading on this date was 91201.

                    The Complainant has alleged that the warranty of such a part is minimum 1,20,000 Kms. The vehicle had run about 8000 Kms after the turbocharger was replaced. The Complainant thus demanded a refund of the amount paid as the demand was denied the Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party is therefore guilty of deficiency in service. The Complainant also served a legal notice dated 02.08.2011 to the Opposite Party, asking them for refund of the amount, as the Opposite Party has not complied with his request, the Complainant has thus filed this complaint with the prayer that the Opposite Party be directed to refund `1,07,427/-, along with interest and compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused to him.  

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party.

3.                 Opposite Party in their reply has taken the preliminary objection that the defect in the turbocharger which was replaced by the Complainant is not covered under warranty, as the defect had occurred due to negligence of the Complainant who failed to notice the indication on the instrument panel that the oil pump had gone defective and continued to drive the vehicle, thereby damaging the turbocharger.  The Complainant was required to make payment for replacement/ repair. Moreover, before starting the repair the Complainant was duly informed by the Opposite Party that the replacement of the part/ repair would be chargeable and he was asked to deposit `50,000/- with the Respondent, so that the part could be requisitioned from the Manufacturer. The Complainant had brought the vehicle for repair on 6.6.2011, but deposited the amount of `50,000/- only on 16.6.2011. The part was received by the Opposite Party from the Manufacturer on 22.6.2011 and the vehicle was ready for delivery after fitting the said part on 30.6.2011.

                    Even otherwise, the replacement/ repair of the vehicle is not covered under the warranty as the original purchaser of the vehicle had got the engine overhauled from an unauthorized Workshop i.e. M/s Car Nation. Such repair is not approved by the Manufacturer. The turbocharger had however been replaced by the Opposite Party. The original purchaser did not make any complaint regarding the replaced part, even though he had visited the Workshop of the Opposite Party three times thereafter on 21.02.201, 12.04.2011 and 14.05.2011. Opposite Party has further stated that even the Manufacturer M/s General Motors India Limited has not been impleaded in the present Complaint.

                    On merits, Opposite Party has submitted that they are not aware about the deal executed between the Complainant and the earlier Owner or the condition of the vehicle on the date of sale. The earlier Owner never made any Complaints about the replacement in his subsequent visits, as already mentioned above. When the Complainant brought the vehicle in question for repair to the Opposite Party, due to starting problem, it was found that the oil compression was weak. This defect was due to negligent driving as the Driver of the vehicle ignored the indication on the instrument panel showing that the oil pump had become defective which led to the turbocharger failure. As the defect has occurred due to the negligence of the driver, the defect is not covered under the warranty. Hence, the Complainant was rightly charged the amount of replacement. The Opposite Party has denied knowledge of the consideration for which the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant from the earlier Owner. Reiterating the averments made in the preliminary objections and stating that there is no cause of action in favour of the Complainant to file the present complaint, the

Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                 The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party has charged him `1,07,427/- for replacement of turbocharger which was under warranty. However, no warranty card either issued by the Manufacturer or the Opposite Party has been placed on record by the Complainant in support of his contentions. The Opposite Party has stated that the turbocharger became defective due to the negligence of the Driver, who did not note the low oil pressure on the indicator panel and continued to drive the vehicle by ignoring the said indication/ warning.  The Opposite Party has placed on record Annexure “X”, relevant extract of which is reproduced hereinbelow: -

                        “Engine Oil Pressure

n             illuminates red.

It illuminates when the ignition is switched on and goes out shortly after the engine starts.

ILLUMINATES WHEN THE ENGINE IS RUNNING

1.            Manual transmission; depress clutch.

2.            Select neutral gear, automatic transmission; set selector lever to N.

3.            Move out of the flow of traffic as quickly as possible without impeding other vehicles.

4.            Switch off ignition.”

7.                 The Opposite Party has stated that as the vehicle had been purchased by the Complainant from the earlier Owner, who had already got the turbocharger replaced and they were not aware of the condition of the vehicle when it was purchased by the Complainant. They have also stated that the earlier Owner had got the vehicle repaired from an unauthorized Workshop, hence no relief was due to the Complainant. We also agree with the contentions of the Opposite Party. Also the Complainant has not attached any warranty card or any other documentary evidence/ proof to show that he was entitled to free replacement of the turbocharger from the Opposite Party.  The Complaint is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

8.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd March, 2012.                                                

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)