Haryana

Ambala

CC/338/2017

Jagdish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ford India Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Goel

11 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                                        Complaint case no.         :  338 of 2017

                                                                        Date of Institution           :  03.10.2017

                                                                        Date of decision              :  11.02.2021

Jagdish Kumar son of Late Shri Karam Chand, aged about 48 years, resident of House No.42, Patel Nagar, behind B.D. Flour Mill, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

1. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/General Manager/Authorized official, having its registered office at S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu-603204, District Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu.
2. M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, having its Regional Office at 2^nd Floor Building IOC, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Gurugram 122002.
3. M/s Kanav Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized official, Showroom at Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Village Tepla, Ambala Cantt.

           ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

       Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                                      

Present:       Shri P.K. Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ms. Sanjana, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.60,334/- incurred for change of Fuel Injection Pump in car in question, to the complainant alongwith interest upto date @ 10% per annum.   
2. To pay Rs.5,00,000 /- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

 

3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

 

 

382.  

 

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deemfit.

 

          Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a car bearing No.HR01AM-5687, Model New Figo 1.5 TDCi Diesel Trend MT (Ingotsilver) having chasis No.MAJGXXMTKGFJ19953, Engine No.FJ19953 from OP No.3 i.e. dealer vide Invoice No.VSCF12778KN dated 13.10.2015, manufactured by OPs No.1 and 2, having warranty for three years. The OP No.3 assured him that it will provide a trouble free service and during warranty the defective part(s) will be replaced free of cost. In the month of July, 2016 the said car met with an accident and complainant got it repaired from OP No.3, which issued the invoice No.RRIAG0053100 dated 16.07.2016. However, on 23.06.2017, complainant along with his family members was going to Delhi in the said car, it suddenly stopped near Subroto Park, New Delhi, which caused a lot of inconvenience to him and his family. In order to get it repaired he took his car to M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (authorized Service Station of the OPs No.1 & 2), where it was told to him that the fuel injection pump fitted at the back side of the engine compartment got defective and needs to be replaced. The OP No.3, instead of fitting the fuel pump properly had just temporarily affixed it with glue/adhesive. It provided the photographs of the defaulted part, to show the affixation of the fuel injection pump with adhesive. It had shown its inability to replace the same, free of cost under warranty because it was tampered by the OP No.3 during last service. Thereafter, complainant communicated with the service manager of OP No.3 and also sent picture of the tampered component on whatsapp to him, who apologized and requested the him to get changed the parts by paying from his own pocket and assured to refund the amount thereof. For the replacement of fuel injection pump, he paid Rs.60,334/- to M/s Delhi Ford, which issued invoice No.SIP17A00597 dated 26.06.2017. On coming to Ambala, he approached the OP No.3 and inquired as to why fuel injection pump was not replaced and why it was affixed temporarily with glue or adhesive, at the time of service in the month of July, 2016 and requested to refund the amount paid by him for replacement of the fuel injection pump, which got defective during warranty. OP No.3 assured to refund the said amount refunded to him within 10 days, but when complainant did not receive any money from it, then on 01.07.2017, he again visited OP No.3, but its officials misbehaved with him. The OPs no.1 and 2 are also having gloves in hand with the OP No.3. By not refunding the amount of Rs.60,334/-, all the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.   

2.                Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non joinder of necessary party, cause of action etc. On merits, it is stated that Ford India Private Limited is a Company registered in India under The Companies Act, 1956 and it is not regional dealer of Ford Motors. It has relations with its dealers on ‘principle to principle basis’ and thus is not responsible for the acts or omission of its dealer i.e. OP No.3. The warranty given by the answering OPs is only for the manufacturing defect, in case defect is found in any part of the car, same is replaceable, if covered under warranty, subject to conditions. As per the information received from OP No.3, the car of the complainant met with an accident and reported to its service centre on 16.07.2016. Complainant made a claim for 1,50,000/- approximately, before the insurance company. On 26.07.2016, car of the complainant was completely repaired and delivered to the complainant. The complainant never visited at the dealership post on 26.07.2016, and has now filed the present complaint, after a year as an afterthought, alleging that the Fuel Injection Pump was affixed with adhesive/glue. It is apparent from the facts that complainant got his car repaired from an unauthorized service centre and levelling false allegations against the answering OPs. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to service rendered by the dealer i.e. OP No.3 and therefore answering OPs have no role to play in the present complaint. As per clause 5 of the Warranty and service Guide, the answering OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant for the loss suffered by him. The relationship between the manufacturer and the authorized dealer is on principal to principal basis and after sales services are to be rendered by the authorized dealer and the manufacturer is not a service provider, it is manufacturing the vehicle. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs, therefore, complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with heavy costs. 

                   Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non joinder of the necessary party etc. On merits, it is stated that the car of the complainant met with an accident and it did the repair of the said vehicle in the month of July, 2016, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. After the repair, the vehicle had run for more than a year and as per complainant he got serviced his car from Delhi Ford Dealer and made the payment to it, but he has not impleaded it as opposite party in the arrays of opposite parties, being a necessary party. Since, the car of the complainant met with an accident during warranty, therefore warranty of the car became void. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is defective and it is nowhere, liable for the consequences or refund of the amount. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant was denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

 

3.                 To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-16 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1& 2 tendered affidavit of Mr. Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg, working with OPs No.1 and 2 as Annexure R-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R1/1 to R1/3. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered affidavit of Mohinder Kumar-Works Manager of M/s Kanav Motors, Tepla Tehsil and District Ambala as Annexure R3/A along with documents Annexure R3/1 to R3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.

                   On the other hand complainant filed application for additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 06.01.2020 and complainant tendered Annexure C-17 in his additional evidence and closed his evidence.  

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for complainant & learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 and Ld. Counsel for OP No.3 and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the car in question from OP No.3 manufactured by OP No.1 and 2. It met with an accident and he got it repaired from OP No.3 in the month of July, 2016. However, on 23.06.2017, while he along with his family was going to Delhi, on the said car, it stopped on the road. He took it to M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, for repairs, there it was told to him that this happened due to defective fuel injection pump. It was further told that the fuel injection pump was temporarily affixed with some adhesive/glue by the OP No.3, during last service. He talked to the official of the OP No.3, who advised him to get repaired the car from his own pocket and the refund will be paid thereof by it. He paid Rs.60,334/- to Ms/ Delhi Ford, vide invoice dated 26.06.2017, Annexure C-1. However, the OP No.3 refused to pay the said amount, in spite of the fact that the car was under warranty. Since, OP No.3 is the dealer of OP No.1 and 2, therefore they being the manufacturer are also liable to refund the amount of Rs.60,334/-.

                   On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 argued that since the car of the complainant met with an accident during warranty as per term No.24 of the warranty, which reads as under:-

“24. Loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from all the external causes such as accidents, bad weather, fire, theft, or attempted theft, collision, freezing or heat. This warranty will cease to operate and no claim will be accepted where the vehicle............”

the warranty became void. Moreover, the OP No.3 is mere a dealer of the OPs No.1 and 2 and if any wrong has been committed by it then OPs No.1 and 2 are not liable for any of its act and conduct, because the OPs No.1 and 2 being manufacturer has relations with its dealers on ‘principle to principle basis’. Furthermore, complainant has alleged that he got replaced the fuel injection pump from the M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, but he has not impleaded it as a party in arrays of opposite party, being necessary party. As such the complaint filed by the complainant against them, deserves dismissal with heavy costs.

                   Ld. counsel for the OP No.3 vehemently argued that the OP No.3 repaired the accidental car of the complainant in the month of July, 2016 and delivered it to him to his entire satisfaction. Complainant has alleged that he got replaced the defective fuel injection pump from M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and paid Rs.60,334/- to it. No doubt, he has placed on record the invoice Annexure C/1, but from the said invoice, it cannot be ascertained that the same has actually been issued by M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He further alleged that the Engineer/technician of M/s Delhi Ford told him that the fuel pump was affixed with adhesive/glue, but no evidence in this regard has been produced by the complainant. He also argued that M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi is a necessary party, but complainant has not impleaded it in the arrays of the opposite parties. As such the present complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed on merits as well on the issue of maintainability.

                   Admittedly, complainant purchased the car in question from OP No.3 manufactured by OPs No.1 and 2 on 13.10.2015. It is also admitted fact that the said car met with an accident and complainant got it repaired from OP No.3 in the month of July, 2016. Complainant has alleged that while he was going to Delhi in the car in question, it stopped on the road and he took it to M/s Delhi Ford for repairs, there it was told to him by the Engineer/technician that the fuel injection pump needs to be replaced and also told him that the fuel injection pump was temporarily affixed with adhesive/glue by the OP No.3. In the entire, case the complainant has tried to prove his contention on the basis of documents, authenticity whereof is doubtful. The invoice dated 26.06.2017 Annexure C/1, neither bear any stamp of the service center nor its name. Even, this has not been proved that the car in question had been taken to alleged workshop for repairs. During the pendency of the complaint also opportunity was available to the complainant to prove his case by placing on record some cogent and reliable evidence in the shape of bills of repair showing the name of the company thereof, but he failed to do so. From the perusal of vehicle history Annexure C-17, led by the complainant in his additional evidence, does not prove the allegations levelled by him against OP No.3. Furthermore, he has not impleaded M/s Delhi Ford, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as a opposite party, being a necessary party. Since, the car of the complainant met with an accident within warranty, therefore as per term No.24 of warranty, warranty of the car in question became void. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on all scores.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against all the OPs. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 11.02.2021.

 

                     Sd/-                                       Sd/-                               Sd/-

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                          President

                                                                                              DCDRC, Ambala