Haryana

Sonipat

CC/317/2016

Anup - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jai Ambe Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Jeetan Dutt Sharma

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.317 of 2016

                                Instituted on:12.08.2016

                                Date of order:16.01.2017

 

Anup son of Satyawan resident of 416/25, West Ram Nagar, near Teen Transformer, Suri Petrol Pump Wali Gali, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant

                           Versus

1.M/s Jai Amble Automobiles, Kabirpur Byepass road, near Sai Mandir, Sonepat through its Prop/Manager.

2.Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd. Registered office 2-A Mahindra Tower, Bhikha Ji Cama Palace, New Delhi through its Director.

3.M/s Drona Automobiles near Atul Katariya Chowk, Opp. Hooda Nursery, Gurgaon, through its Prop/Manager.

                                           ...Respondents

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Jeetan Dutt Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Shri Parveen Mudgal for respondent no.1.

           Shri Ashish Garg, Adv. for respondent no.2.

Respondent no.3 ex-parte on 17.10.2016.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

          J.L. GUPTA…………………………………………………………MEMBER.

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the respondent no.2 is dealing in the business of sale purchase of second hand cars and respondent no.1 is the authorized dealer/frenchisee of respondent no.2.  On 19.3.2016, the complainant has purchased a second hand car no.DL-8CX-0783 make Volkswagen, Polo from respondent no.1 for Rs.2,55,000/-. The respondent no.1 has issued a warranty registration certificate for a period of six months w.e.f. 22.3.2016 to 22.9.2016 or reading of meter from 72380 to 79880 km and toe free facility.  Since the day of its purchase, the said car was not running properly.  On 22.5.2016, when the complainant alongwith his family was going to Gohana, a lot of smoke came form the vehicle and the vehicle stopped and at that time, the vehicle has run only 3000 km.  The complainant made a call to the customer care of the respondents who sent a crane and took the said car to their authorized service centre.  The car would not be repaired and the mechanic has opined that the injector and turbo has problem and an estimate of Rs.1,86,000/- was told for removing the said problem.  The complainant refused to get his car repaired as the same was within warranty.   The vehicle was sent to respondent no.3 on 16.6.2016 where the mechanic declared that the engine and fuel pump of the car were dead.  The respondents are demanding Rs.1,86,000/- for repair of the car whereas the car is within warranty.  The respondents has charged Rs.6000/- on account of toe charges/carriage charges.  The respondents are liable to replace the said car with any other car, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notice to the respondent no.3 was issued.  The registered envelope was received back from respondent no.3 with the report of refusal.  When none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.2016.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that on 19.03.2016 one vehicle make Polo bearing no.DL-8CX-0783 was sold to the complainant by the respondent no.1.  If there has arisen any problem, the consumer can contact the Mahindra First Choice Help Line Number.  All the liabilities are of Mahindra First Choice and the respondent no.1 Jai Ambe has no liability in any manner.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has malafide intention to secure a favourable order for his wrongful gain in wrongful manner.  The respondent no.1 and 2 are two different legal entities which carry their respective business dealings without each other interference.  The respondent no.2 cannot be held liable for any acts and omissions on the part of respondent no.1, if any.  The complainant is demanding replacement of the vehicle or refund of the vehicle cost.  The replacement of the vehicle can only be allowed if there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. As per warranty terms, first towing services was provided free of cost.  The complainant had requested for towing his vehicle from the premises of respondent no.1 to respondent no.3.  Since this towing service was not covered under the warranty, the complainant had paid Rs.5500/- as cost for the service.  The complainant has to pay only Rs.50,000/- towards repair of the vehicle, but the complainant had never given approval for the same.  The respondent no.2 is not liable to replace the subject vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle and is also not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          In the present case, the complainant has submitted that on 19.3.2016, the complainant has purchased a second hand car no.DL-8CX-0783 make Volkswagen, Polo from respondent no.1 for Rs.2,55,000/-. The respondent no.1 has issued a warranty registration certificate for a period of six months w.e.f. 22.3.2016 to 22.9.2016 or reading of meter from 72380 to 79880 km and toe free facility.  Since the day of its purchase, the said car was not running properly.  On 22.5.2016, when the complainant alongwith his family was going to Gohana, a lot of smoke came form the vehicle and the vehicle stopped and at that time, the vehicle has run only 3000 km.  The complainant made a call to the customer care of the respondents who sent a crane and took the said car to their authorized service centre.  The car would not be repaired and the mechanic has opined that the injector and turbo has problem and an estimate of Rs.1,86,000/- was told for removing the said problem.  The complainant refused to get his car repaired as the same was within warranty.   The vehicle was sent to respondent no.3 on 16.6.2016 where the mechanic declared that the engine and fuel pump of the car were dead.  The respondents are demanding Rs.1,86,000/- for repair of the car whereas the car is within warranty.  The respondents has charged Rs.6000/- on account of toe charges/carriage charges.  The respondents are liable to replace the said car with any other car, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted that on 19.3.2016 one vehicle make Polo bearing no.DL-8CX-0783 was sold to the complainant by the respondent no.1.  If there has arisen any problem, the consumer can contact the Mahindra First Choice Help Line Number.  All the liabilities are of Mahindra First Choice and the respondent no.1 Jai Ambe has no liability in any manner

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has also submitted that the complainant has malafide intention to secure a favourable order for his wrongful gain in wrongful manner.  The respondent no.1 and 2 are two different legal entities which carry their respective business dealings without each other interference.  The respondent no.2 cannot be held liable for any acts and omissions on the part of respondent no.1, if any.  The complainant is demanding replacement of the vehicle or refund of the vehicle cost.  The replacement of the vehicle can only be allowed if there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. As per warranty terms, first towing services was provided free of cost.  The complainant had requested for towing his vehicle from the premises of respondent no.1 to respondent no.3.  Since this towing service was not covered under the warranty, the complainant had paid Rs.5500/- as cost for the service.  The complainant has to pay only Rs.50,000/- towards repair of the vehicle, but the complainant had never given approval for the same.  The respondent no.2 is not liable to replace the subject vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle and is also not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.

          We have perused the document Annexure C-7 and in this document, name of the part, its value and other labour charges is mentioned.

          We have also perused the warranty registration form Ex.OPW2/2 and in this document, it is mentioned that warranty starts on 22.3.2016 and expires on 22.9.2016.  The defects developed in the vehicle in question on 22.5.2016 i.e. within two months from the date of purchase of the vehicle.

          The document Annexure C-7 shows that engine working time in SDNLI Stop and Badli Nose.  Price of tarbo charges/new part is shown as Rs.90,000/- and price of part of injector/new part is mentioned as Rs.32000/-.  Besides this, labour charges is mentioned as Rs.2870, tarbo opening fitting Rs.3500/-, injector opening fitting Rs.4000/-, towing charges Rs.4000/-, injector coding is mentioned as Rs.8000/-.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the above mentioned parts are required to be placed under warranty or not?

          We have perused the terms and conditions of the warranty and the part turbo, intercooler units (if factory fitted) is mentioned in the part.

           So, in our view, the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents as the defects have developed in the vehicle during the warranty i.e. within two months from the date of its purchase. In our view, non-replacement of the defective parts of the vehicle during the warranty period, amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Accordingly, the respondents no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to replace the defective turbo charger (turbo), injector and other related parts which are necessary to make the vehicle of the complainant into running condition and not to charge any amount from the complainant.  The respondents no.1 to 3 are also hereby directed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant into running condition within 20 days from the date of passing of this order. In case the vehicle is not delivered to the complainant within stipulated period of 20 days, then the respondents no.1 to 3 shall also pay Rs.500/- per day i.e. after expiry of 20 days from the date of passing of the order till delivery of vehicle to the complainant. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand in total) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the

 

 

 

present complaint stands allowed.

 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (JL Gupta)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:16.01.2017