Haryana

StateCommission

A/1012/2018

AMRIK SINGH TANEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HARPREET FORD - Opp.Party(s)

MANUJ CHADHA

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.1012 of 2018

                                                Date of the Institution: 30.08.2018

                                                Date of Decision: 25.09.2019

 

 

 

Amrik Singh Taneja, resident of House No.C-163, Sushant Lok, Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

 

…..Complainant-Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      M/s. Harpreet Ford (A unit of Harpreet Motors Private Limited), G-3, Sewa Corporate Park, M.G. Road (Behind H.P. Petrol Pump) Gurugram (through its Authorized Signatory).

 

2.      Service Centre, M/s. Harpreet Ford (A unit of Harpreet Motors Private Limited), Plot No.29-30, Sector 30, Infocity, Near Hero Honda Plant, Gurugram (through its Authorized Signatory).

 

…..Opposite Parties-Respondents

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                  

                                     

Present:-    Shri Manuj Chadha, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Prakash Muchandaney, counsel for the opposite parties.

                    

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The complainant, namely, Amrik Singh Taneja has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 1.8.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Gurgaon.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum after holding that there was delay in carrying out repair of the vehicle of the complainant for a considerable time, which tantamounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, directed the opposite parties to pay him a sum of `20,000/- as compensation in the repair of the vehicle, mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.      In the instant appeal, the appellant has sought setting aside of the impugned order and to direct the opposite parties to either replace the engine of the vehicle or to refund the amount received from the appellant along with interest and enhancing the compensation amount and granting litigation expenses.

4.      According to the complainant, he had purchased Ford Ecosport 1.5 MT Diesel Trend bearing registration No.HR-26CF-5031 from M/s. Harpreet Ford, authorized dealer-opposite party No.1 on 7.1.2014 for a sum of `7,92,669/-. From the very beginning, the car started giving problem and the complainant approached opposite party No.2-Service Centre of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 delivered the vehicle on 3.6.2017 after rectification. Even thereafter, the vehicle had to be taken to opposite party No.2 on a couple of times for the same problem but opposite party No.2 failed to remove the problem. The complainant also paid the service/rectification charges despite the fact that the vehicle was still under warranty. On 31.5.2017, the complainant paid a sum of `6,425/- towards the repair and maintenance charges. The complainant was told that the vehicle would not create any problem thereafter but the vehicle was still having the problem. It seemed that no repair was carried out by opposite party No.2. The complainant gave a legal notice and also sent a reminder but in vain. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for refund of the cost price i.e. `7,92,669/- along with interest @ 18% per annum or to replace the vehicle with new one and also to refund the service charges paid by the complainant from time to time. He also claimed a sum of `1,00,000/- as compensation due to mental agony and harassment.

5.      Upon notice, the opposite parties put in appearance and filed written version, submitting therein that the allegations levelled in the complaint were false, frivolous, misleading, misrepresented, mischievous and vexatious and a false complaint had been filed. Defamatory allegations were levelled in the complaint. In fact, the complainant himself was guilty of his own conduct and could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs. It was further pleaded that the complainant was engaged in construction business and as such the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The opposite parties denied the allegations that the vehicle was within warranty as the warranty period had expired since the sale was 7.1.2014, whereas, the complaint was filed on 10.8.2017. It was further contended that the vehicle had run 64231 Kms. as on 31.5.2017 and the parts were replaced under warranty and nothing was charged from the complainant for the parts, which were not under warranty. It was denied that the complainant had paid sufficient amount for repair and service of the vehicle. The opposite parties also denied that the vehicle was taken time and again to the service centre for the same problem. The opposite party had charged the amount for the parts, which were not covered under the warranty and for consumable items whereas the free services were over and as such the complainant had to pay service charges since the vehicle had crossed 60000 Kms.  Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

6.      To substantiate his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and relied upon documents (Exhibits C-1 to C-6), whereas, the opposite parties filed the affidavit (Exhibit DW1/A) of Shri A. Mathew, Executive Director of the Company and relied upon documents (Exhibits DW/A-1 to DW/A-8).

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, learned District Forum held that there was no material on the record that any major mechanical work had been done on the vehicle. The order of the parts required to be replaced was placed on 6.3.2017, the parts procured on 6.7.2017 and the vehicle delivered on 6.10.2017. However, there was nothing in the invoices that there was any major/mechanical defect in the vehicle, which had run 64542 Kms. and as such the problem was rectified while treating the vehicle within warranty/extended warranty.  However, it was evident that considerable time of approximately seven/eight months had been consumed in rectifying the problem. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, no case was made out for replacement of the vehicle. However, as the vehicle was repaired after a considerable delay of one month and subsequently of seven months, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, the complainant was held entitled to receive an amount of `20,000/- as compensation for delayed repair, mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

8.      This Commission has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which stands requisitioned besides going through the impugned order.

9.      The vehicle in question had been purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 7.1.2014. The vehicle was under warranty for 48 months i.e. from 20.1.2014 to 21.1.2018 or upto one lakh kilometers, whichever was earlier. For the first time, the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.2 on 6.3.2014 and service was done free of costs. No major defect was mentioned on the vehicle history (Exhibit C-5). Even in the job sheet dated 10.7.2014, no mechanical defect was pointed out and consumables were changed, for which amount was paid by the complainant besides minor running problem rectified free of costs. On 23.12.2014, the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.2 and service was done, for which the complainant charged `4,676/- for the consumables. The vehicle was once again taken to opposite party No.2 on 25.4.2015 and there was no issue with regard to any problem. On 28.7.2015 when the vehicle was again sent to the service station, running repair was done and the amount charged for consumables. On 1.3.2016 when the vehicle was taken to opposite party No.2, it had covered 41031 Kms. and filter/oil/cleaning etc. was done. There was no defect, what to talk of mechanical defect, which required rectification. The opposite party No.2 charged a sum of `6,237/- for the consumables. On 19.3.2016, when the vehicle had covered 42078 Kms. there was problem of Wheel Nut, which was rectified on charge basis. The vehicle was taken to service centre on 13.5.2016 on account of HOUSING ASSY T/STAT problem and thermostat problem, which was rectified and no charges taken by opposite party No.2. On 22.5.2016, there was battery problem, which was not covered under the warranty and a sum of `1,711.58 charged and no other amount was charged. On 1.8.2016 when the vehicle had covered 50057 Kms. service was done and consumables were charged. However, there was no other mechanical defect in the vehicle. On 20.8.2016, the vehicle was taken to the service centre and minor rectification was done free of costs. On 19.12.2016, the running defect was rectified. On 31.1.2017, service was done and consumables were charged besides, running repair was done. On 18.2.2017, the vehicle was taken to the service centre with the problem of AC filter, AC compressor, AC gas and Seal Evaporator Hinge DR Glove Box and the repairs were done free of costs. On 30.4.2017 when the vehicle had covered 64213 Kms., it was taken to service centre with the problem of automatic off in running time and after investigation turbocharger, valve inlet etc. were charged free of costs by treating the vehicle under extended warranty. However, the vehicle was delivered after a considerable delay of one month i.e. on 31.5.2017. From 6.3.2017 to 6.10.2017, the vehicle again remained in the workshop as certain parts were required to be replaced.

10.    From the material, which has come on the record, it is made out that the vehicle in question, which had been purchased by the complainant with his hard earned money is required to be taken by him to the workshop every now and then. So much so that certain parts are required to be replaced. On two occasions, the vehicle had to be left with the service centre for a considerable long period of time for carrying out the repairs. As such, the complainant could not use the vehicle for the purpose, for which he had purchased the same. As such, the amount of `20,000/- awarded to him by the learned District Forum as compensation on account of delay in repairing the vehicle and for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses deserves to be enhanced. Ends of justice would require that the opposite parties shall pay compensation to the complainant 50% of the value of the vehicle at which it was initially purchased.

11.    Alongwith the appeal an application has been filed by the complainant/appellant for placing on record the report of Mechanical Engineer along with his affidavit as Exhibit C-7 and copy of bank statement of the complainant/appellant as Exhibit   C-8. Exhibit C-7 is the report of Shri Raj Kumar Khetarpal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who after checking the vehicle and on going through the history of repairs carried out, opined as under:

“On checking said car and on going through the history of repairs carried out, I am of the opinion that said car which had run only 64994 Km. had to go for major engine parts replacements, still the complaint of the owner i.e. the vibration of the engine have not vanished, rather it has developed another fault i.e. the clutch is very hard which resulted in problem of gear shifting. It seems the engine of said car have manufacturing defects which should have been replaced on finding engine oil and coolant mixing. The staff/technicians working at the dealers point are not well trained, since they were using all the time hit and trial method at the cost of the time of the owner. As per my opinion complete engine of said card needs replacement.

 

Exhibit C-8 is the copy of the bank statement of the complainant/appellant showing installments paid against bank loan inclusive of interest.

12.    After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Commission finds that no case is made out for bringing the aforesaid documents on record as additional evidence. The report of the Surveyor has been issued on 23.8.2018 i.e. subsequent to the passing of the impugned order by the learned District Forum, whereas, the bank statement shows the repayment of the loan, which the apellant had taken for purchasing the vehicle. However, no case is made out for bringing the said two documents on record as additional evidence.

13.    Resultantly, the appeal is partly accepted and the opposite parties are directed to pay 50% of the purchase value of the vehicle to the complainant within 45 days from the date when the instant order is served upon the opposite parties or else it shall be recoverable by the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.

 

Announced 25.09.2019

(Manjula) Member

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.