PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 5.9.2007 the complainant purchased a Ford Fiesta car from OP-3.  He regularly visited OP-3 to avail free as well as paid services. The original warranty of the car expired on 5.9.2008 and he got the same extended upto 5.9.2009 and thereafter upto 31.8.2010.  On 18.3.2010 while he was coming back from Bapror suddenly the car started giving trouble and did not even start.  He contacted OP-3 but they asked him to bring the car to the workshop and he brought the car to the workshop at 5:30 p.m by spending Rs.2000/-. On 25.3.2010 OP-3 called him and informed him to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- to meet the repair of the car and refused to honour the warranty.  He visited  OP-3 and showed them the documents of extended warranty but they refused to repair the vehicle under extended warranty.  He served a legal notice dated 2.4.2010 asking them to replace the engine and to repair the car free of cost under extended warranty  and to pay compensation but to no avail.  Hence this complaint. 

2.             In their written reply OPs 1 & 2 did not dispute the facts with regard to sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant, the warranty provided and subsequent extended warranty.  However, it has been submitted that as per terms and conditions of warranty, and also the extended warranty, it was the duty of the complainant to report the vehicle for service periodically but he was highly irregular in reporting the vehicle in dispute for servicing and hence his claim was not tenable as the alleged defects in the vehicle were due to mishandling of the vehicle in not changing the engine oil and unacceptable and improper maintenance  by him. It has been stated that the workshop of the OP rigorously  attended to the vehicle of the complainant and assessed the repair estimate at Rs.1,25,000/- for engine overhaul and repair/replacing the affected parts which was communicated to the complainant  on 25.3.2010. It has been denied that there was any defect in the vehicle. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-3 in their separate written reply took almost similar pleas as were taken by OPs 1 & 2 in their written reply and also 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 also perused the record including written arguments.

6.             The main contention of the complainant is that the OPs refused to repair the vehicle despite under extended warranty and demanded to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- to meet the repair of the car.  A legal notice Annexure C-8 dated 2.4.2010 asking them to replace the engine and to repair the car free of cost under extended warranty  and to pay compensation was also sent to the OPs but to no avail.  In support of his contentions the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1, which is the copy of the certificate of registration of the said car to prove that it was purchased from OP-3 on 05.09.2007, which carried a warranty of one year vide warranty card Annexure C-3. Annexure C-4 is the copy of the first extended warranty.  Annexure C-2 is the copy of the service record of first three services done by OP-3 but thereafter no service record is stamped by OP-3 as is clear from the service record.  Annexure C-5 is the copy of retail invoice issued by OP-3 in lieu of the replacement done by them during the period of First extended warranty period. Annexure C-6 is the copy of the second extended warranty. Annexure C-7 (colly.) are the copies of the email correspondence had between the parties regarding repair of the said car. Annexure C-8 is the copy of the customer information sheet issued by OP-3 to the complainant.  

7.             On the other hand the OPs while referring to the terms and conditions of the warranty Annexure-1 contended that the complainant was highly irregular in reporting the vehicle in dispute for servicing and hence his claim was not tenable as the alleged defects in the vehicle were due to mishandling of the vehicle in not changing the engine oil and unacceptable and improper maintenance by him. In support of their contentions the OPs have placed on record Annexure-2, the copy of the warranty and service guide showing the required intervals between services of the vehicle. Annexure-3 (colly.) is the copy of the periodical maintenance service chart of the said car. Annexure 4 is the copy of the vehicle repair history of the said car. Annexure-6 is the copy of the reply of the legal notice dated 05.05.2010 alongwith acknowledgment cards.

8.             Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant from OP-3. The main dispute is only with regard to the repair of the vehicle by the OPs, that too under the extended warranty period, on the ground that as the complainant was not regular in getting the said vehicle serviced as per the warranty terms and conditions, therefore  the alleged defects in the vehicle were due to mishandling of the vehicle in not changing the engine oil and unacceptable and improper maintenance by the complainant.    

9.             Admittedly the vehicle was sold to the complainant on 05.09.2007 and as per first free service coupon Annexure C-2 it was taken to the OPs for first free service on 22.09.2007 after running  1823 kms against 1500 kms, thereafter it was taken for second free service on 25.10.2007 after running 5500 kms against 5000 kms, then the vehicle was taken on 08.12.2007 after running 10500 kms against 10000 kms and thereafter as per the version/submission of the complainant,  no record has been given to the complainant by the service centre with regard to the services of the said car and the same fact has also gone unrebutted by the OPs.  The OP-1 and OP-2 in their reply in para 19 of the complaint has mentioned the particulars of schedule service required as per the warranty manual and also the services in terms of kms and dates reported by the complainant. The relevant part of the same is reproduced as under:-

Service Interval  Services due   Services reported by    Service reported date

                     in terms of kms        the complainant in

                                        terms of kms.

First Service        1500          1823                          22.09.2007

Second Service      5000          5500                          25.10.2007

Third Service                10000         10500                         08.12.2007

Fourth Service      20000         28948                         20.06.2008

Fifth Service        30000         35103                         02.09.2008

Sixth Service                40000         49087                         07.02.2009

Seventh Service     50000         57297                         24.06.2009

Eight Service                60000         72007                         19.03.2010

10.           The same schedule of the service has been submitted by OP-3 also. It is apparent that OP-1 and OP-2 being the manufacturer of the said car are not situated at Chandigarh nor was the car taken to them by the complainant for service out the Chandigarh. Admittedly it has been taken to OP-3 for carrying out the service as per the chart shown above and it is obvious that the data of the above shown chart would have received by OP-1 and OP-2 from the record/vehicle history report (now marked Annexure R-1/1) maintained by OP-3.  On the basis of Annexure R-1/1 only the OPs have been alleging that the complainant was not regular in bringing his car at required intervals for servicing/maintenance.  We have perused the record Annexure R-1/1 very carefully and find that it does not match with the chart/record as submitted by OPs in their reply, which is a sole evidence against the complainant to deny the free repair of the said car by the OPs, being under the extended warranty.  As per Vehicle History Report (Annexure R-1/1), the record shows as under:-

Service Interval  Services due   Services reported by    Service reported date

                     in terms of kms        the complainant in

                                        terms of kms.

Second Service      5000          5500                          25.10.2007

Third Service                10000         10500                         08.12.2007

Paid Service         30000         28948                         20.06.2008

Not mentioned         not mentioned 35103                         02.09.2008

Not mentioned         50000          49087                         07.02.2009

Not mentioned         50000         57297                         24.06.2009

Not mentioned         Not mentioned 72007                         19.03.2010

11.          It has not been made clear by the OPs as to on what basis and reference the OP-1 and OP-2 have prepared the scheduled service chart mentioned at their reply in para no. 19; on the basis of which they are trying to evade their liability of free repair of the said car of the complainant. It is evident from Annexure R-1/1 that except against first two services, that too only over running of about 500 kms only,  the vehicle was taken to the OP-3 for services and during that period no such alleged defect took place.

12.          Otherwise also, admittedly the first extended warranty and the second extended warranty was granted to the complainant by the OPs. In our view, if the vehicle was not got serviced/maintained by the complainant as per the warranty terms then there was no question of granting the extended warranties one after the other, to the complainant for his vehicle, which clearly shows that the OPs were unjust on their part by not repairing the said car being under the extended warranty.

13.          It is also important to mention here that on 07.02.2009, when the vehicle was under extended warranty, it was repaired by OP-3 vide retail invoice Annexure C-5, wherein some parts like Puly and adjustment AR, KIT Tension Pully, Lock Set Less Pats and Pully Asy tension worth were replaced free of costs being the vehicle under warranty.  The contention of the OPs, that the vehicle could not be repaired free of cost as the complainant was not regular in getting the service of his car cannot be accepted as correct because if it was so, then the OPs would not have replaced the above said parts free of cost vide Annexure C-5. Hence, record shows that the OPs were deficient in service and have adopted unfair trade practice by not repairing the car of the complainant being under extended warranty and for this act of the OPs, they are liable to repair the car of the complainant free of cost being the same under warranty and also to compensate the complainant for causing him mental and physical harassment.

14.          In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is a lot of merit in the present case and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to receive the car from the complainant and get the said alleged defect rectified free of cost being the car under warranty and supply it to the complainant upto his entire satisfaction.  The OPs shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  Rs.2500/- shall also be paid by the OPs to the complainant. The order shall be complied jointly and severally by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing the OPs would be liable to pay Rs.1,25,000/-, besides payment of compensation and litigation costs and thereafter the complainant would be free to get the said defect rectified from outside. 

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                           Sd/-                                       Sd/-