Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/667/2011

Saurabh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Giriraj Motors etc. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2014

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM  GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                                                          Consumer Complaint No.667 of 2011                                                                                                                                                                                            Date of Institution: 27.12.2011                                                                                                                                                                                                   Date of Decision: 11.02.2015

Saurabh Sharma S/o Pt. Jagmohan Sharma, R/o H1/125, Ground Floor, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Giriraj Motors (A Division of JSB Auto Pvt. Ltd) Opp. JMD Pacific Square, Near 32^nd Milestone, Chander Nagar, Sector-15, Part-2, Gurgaon-122001.

 

2. M/s Skoda India Private Ltd, A-1/1 MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad-431 201.

 

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh.Jag Mohan Sharma, Representative/Father of complainant Saurabh Sharma.

                    OP-1 exparte

                    Sh. Jagpal Singh, adv for OP-2

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.    

 

              The complainant alleged that  he has purchased Skoda Fabia Car  Regd. No DL-4CAV-3943 manufactured by OP-2 from their authorized dealer OP-1 vide Invoice No.INV/214 dated 30.09.2009 for a total sum of Rs.5,56,792/- (C-1). The complainant further alleged that he has incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- for its registration, insurance etc. The complainant further alleged that there was two years Warranty provided by the manufacturer. The complainant further alleged that vehicle was not functioning properly and it has inherent defect. The vehicle was suffering from missing problem and was taken to the workshop  of OP-1 on 14.08.2010 vide Retail Invoice  (showing Job Card dated 14.08.2010, Invoice No.GGN02-005068 dated 12.09.2010 with mileage 28,562 km for  spare parts, oil and lubricants  i.e. Filter Element, Inscription, Air Filter, Fuel Filter with Pre, Pollen Filter with O, Brake Fluid, Windsceen Wash,  Shell Helix Ultra 5W, Sticker, Fuel Delivery Unit, Seat, dryclean, Wheel Alignment, Wheel Balancing for a total sum of Rs.9,912/-) (C-2). The complainant further alleged that the vehicle was again taken to the workshop of OP-1 vide Retail Invoice No.GGN02-006669 dated 31.10.2010 against Job Card dated 23.09.2010 at 30512 km showing work done regarding Filter element, Repair set for Cylin and Sheel Helix Ultra 5W which were within warranty and also showing spare parts i.e. Oil for refrigerant for a sum of Rs.513/- (C-6). The complainant further alleged that the Car did not function properly and it was again taken to the OP-1  in August, 2011 and was delivered on 31.08.2011 vide Invoice No.GGN03-005609 dated 31.08.2011 against Job Card dated 06.08.2011 at 48272 km  in which sixteen parts were replaced free   of cost being within warranty  except charging for Fuel Filter with Pre for Rs.413/- )(C-3). The complainant further alleged that his Car is still not functioning properly. The mechanical staff informed him that there is inherent defect in the vehicle and he has to bear with it. Consequently, complainant has complained vide email to OP-2 on 31.08.2011 but of no use (C-7). The complainant also sent registered Legal Notice to the OPs 12.09.2011  alleging that there is inherent defect in the vehicle but of no use (C-4). During the period when the vehicle remained in the Workshop of OP-1 he has to incur a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his conveyance. Besides it, he has also undergone harassment and mental agony and thus, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs. The complainant seek refund of the price of the Car Rs.5,56,792/- + Rs.50,000/- spent by him on its registration and insurance etc i.e. total Rs.8,56,792/- form the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to pay. He also claimed litigation expenses of Rs25,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP-1 failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded exparte on 17.04.2012.

3                 OP-2 in its written reply while denying the claim of the complainant has taken the objections that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in dispute. It is admitted that the vehicle was purchased on 30.09.2009 from their dealer OP-1 which has warranty of two years from the date of purchase against manufacturing defect but the complainant failed to prove that the vehicle has any manufacturing defect when even he has not got appointed expert u/s 13(1)(c ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to prove his allegation of manufacturing defect. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant as alleged. The necessary repairs on the vehicle were done with the permission of the complainant. Skoda Fabia Model Car is one of the best product of the answering OP and have been declared as Car of the year in 2009 and so on. The allegations of the complainant are infact wrong and whimsical. Infact, as per history of the Car up to last service dated 07.04.2012 it has mileage of 59666 km which proves that the vehicle does not have any defect and if it was it could not run even 100 km. The vehicle has also undergone two times accidental repairs on 09.10.2009 at 1439 km and on 17.11.2011 at 54244 km. The vehicle was also availed paid service two times on 28.04.2011 at 41842 km and on 04.03.2012 at 58763 km. Besides it, it has also undergone two free services firstly on 20.02.2010 at 15514 km and secondly on 14.10.2010 at 28562 km. The vehicle has also undergone running repair 15 times out of which 9 times the vehicle was brought for minor complaints and it has nothing to do with the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Even the complainant availed festival check up free of charges on 24.10.2011 and was satisfied with the services provided to him. He has even given satisfaction note to OP-1 for providing services on 24.10.2011, 04.03.2012, 11.03.2012 and 20.03.2012. The complainant, however, as per tabulation has brought the vehicle and got necessary repairs done from them and during this period services given by the OPs to the complainant speak truth which show that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complaint of  Engine Misfire  never continued which was made after internal of about 10000 km between two complaints as shown in the table below :

         

14.08.2010	28562	Second Free Service   A C LESS EFFECTIVE MONOGRAM CHN DRYCLEANING ENG MISSFIRE	LUBRICATGION PACKAGE Seat dryclean Wheel Alignment Wheel Balancing
23.09.2010	30512	Running Repair   Eng-MISFIRING	OIL FOR REFRIGERANT COMPRESSOR W-OEM REPARI SET FOR CYLINDER W-OEM FILTER ELEMENT WITH GASKET W-OEM SHEEL HELIX ULTRA 5w40
06.08.2011	48272	Running Repair   Van Scan Wheel Alignment Eng Missfire Fuel Filter Replace
11.03.2012	58802	Running Repair   Engine Miss Firing Check

 

Thus, this tabular clearly shows that there was  long distance between two complaints of misfiring of 18000 km at one time and second at 10000 km which proves that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Under the above circumstances there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle for want of any expert opinion but his case is of normal wear and tear. His vehicle has already covered 60000 km and is road worthy without any further complaint. It is wrong to allege that the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle or any other expenses incurred on it with compensation as alleged when proper services have been provided to the complainant on his each visit. Admittedly some of the parts have been changed under warranty. However, it is denied that the price of the replaced cylinder was Rs.90,000/- or other parts of Rs. 1 Lac as alleged. Infact, the complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs u/s 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The written reply is supported with an affidavit of Shri Nagesh S  Sangle, Assistant Manager –Legal of OP-2.

4                 We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after going through the documents produced by the parties we are of the considered opinion that the vehicle in dispute has been purchased by the plaintiff manufactured by OP-2 from its authorized dealer OP-1 on o30.09.2009 for a sum of Rs.5,56,792/- (C-1). The manufactured provided admittedly warranty of two years for manufacturing defect. The complainant, however, has alleged that the vehicle has inherent defect since beginning and he was made to visit the workshop of OP-1 on number of times and for the first time allegedly (as per pleadings) he has visited the workshop of OP-1 on 14.08.2010 within warranty period and got necessary repair done at 28562 km though they are necessar4y replacement of the parts for wear and tear i.e. like Filter Element, Inscription, Air Filter, Fuel Filter with Pre, Pollen Filter with O, Brake Fluid, Windsceen Wash,  Shell Helix Ultra 5W, Sticker, Fuel Delivery Unit, Seat, dryclean, Wheel Alignment, Wheel Balancing though Stick and Fuel Delivery Unit A  were under Warranty and were replace free of costs and the balance Bill of Rs.9912/- was charged from him (C-2). Thus, it does not show any type of repair showing any inherent or manufacturing defect at 28562 km.

5                 The complainant has withheld the accidental repair done by OP-1 at 1142 km as per Retail Invoice No.GGN02-001439 dated 11.10.2009 against Job Card dated 09.10.2009 showing that Windshield and Sealant Kit were replaced for a sum of Rs.11377/- (OP-2A). He also got the vehicle repaired as per Retail Invoice No.GGN02-004609 dated 21.02.2010 against Job Card Dated 20.02.2010 by which certain parts i.e. Filter Element, Air Filter, Fuel Filter, Pollen Filter, Flat Fuse, Shell Helix Ultra 5W, concentrate, Switch for Electric have been replaced with job of Wheel Alignment, Wheel Balancing, Teflon Coating, Fuse R&R for Rs.11,875/- (OP-2B) though it is never claimed by the complainant.. He also got repaired his vehicle on 30.01.2010 for a total sum of Rs.513/- as per details shown in (OP-2C) regarding which he has not claimed anything and regarding Job Card dated 23.09.2010, Invoice No.GGN02-006669 dated 31.10.2010 (C-6) there is replacement of Oil for Refrigerant for only Rs.513/- while Filter Element, Repair set with Cylin, Shell Helix Ultra 5W were replaced under warranty at 30512 km and thus, there was nothing to show any defect in the vehicle expect replacement of necessary parts and liquids.

6                 The Retail Invoice No.GG03-005609 dated 31.08.2011 against Job Card dated 06.08.2011 shows that there is replacement of 16 parts at running repair at 48272 km which were however under Warranty and were replaced free of costs except for a sum of Rs.413/- which also means that as every part of the vehicle has its little span for a particular period and mileage and when they were under warranty at 48272 they were replaced by the OP. They were simply Bolt, Filter Element, Cylinder Head, Cylinder Head Gasket, Exhaust manifold, Gasket, Sealant, Silicone Sealant, Socket, HD, screw, Bolt, Hex HD, 12 point Socket Shou, Screw Hex, Bolt  etc. Thus, it also do not show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle but they were placed after a particular mileage. The vehicle has already covered mileage of 59666 km as on 07.04.2012 when it was last serviced with the OP-1 dealer though complaint has been filed on 27.12.2011. Thus, the vehicle is in good running condition and the OP-1 has provided efficient services to the complainant whenever it was taken to the workshop by giving proper services by replacing necessary parts at appropriate time and replacing of necessary fuels etc on charging basis which are necessary wear and tear of a vehicle. The main contention of the complainant is that the vehicle has manufacturing defect under the given circumstances which, however, has no merit as for proving manufacturing defect the opinion of the expert is necessary in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Kumar Namrata Singh Vs Manager, Indus-A Division of Electrotherm 2013 (7) RCR (Civil) 3304 wherein it was held while discussing the provisions of Section 2(f),(j) and 13 ( c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

“that simply because vehicle was required to be brought to ser ice station for curing some defect, is not enough to prove manufacturing defect-To prove manufacturing defect in a vehicle, expert opinion is necessary.”

Similarly, reliance was further  placed on a case titled General Motors India Pvt. Ltd and Anr Vs G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd and Ors in First Appeal No.723, 736 of 2006 decided on 07.02.2013 wherein also the Hon’ble National Commission has observed

“that complainant has also not been able to produce any evidence including that of expert to indicate that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Whenever there was any problem with vehicle either because of normal wear and tear of following accidents, these were promptly attended to by Appellants and there was no deficiency in service in this respect.”

 

Reliance was further placed on Sukhvinder Singh v Classis Automobile and Another, I (2013) CPJ 47 (NC) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission

“that report of expert was essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should have been adduced. The mere fact that the vehicle was taken to the service station for one or two times does not ipso fact prove the manufacturing defect. Due to the lack of evidence the value of the petitioner’s case evanesces.”

Thus, the complainant failed to prove for want of cogent evidence  that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect nor  there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as due services have been provided to him under warranty whenever the complainant visited the OP. Consequently, the complaint has no merit, it fails and stands dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 11.02.2015.

                                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 (Jyoti Siwach)

                       Member