STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.178 of 2011)

Pavinder Singh son of Sh.Karnail Singh, R/o HIG 773/A, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 

….…Appellant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       M/s Mohindra Renault Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai 400039 through its authorized officer.

2]       M/s Swami Automobile Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160 002 through its authorized officer.

…. Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This is complainant’s appeal against the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by  ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed.

2.                 Brief facts of the case are that, a Logan Diesel Car was purchased by the complainant from OP-2 on 3.10.2008.  The averment of the complainant was that the alignment of the vehicle was wrong from the beginning and was corrected on the first service on 30.10.2008.  Subsequently, the complainant had to get the alignment of the car adjusted on 12.11.2008, again on 12.12.2008, and thereafter 16 more times till 2.4.2010.  The dates on which the alignment of the vehicle was got adjusted from the OPs had been given in Para-2 of the complaint.  The complainant alleged that owing to faulty alignment, the tyres of the vehicle had also been wearing out extensively.  The complainant stated that the said vehicle met with an accident on 25.7.2009 as the vehicle lost its balance due to wrong alignment and hit the road side. The complainant averred that he had asked the OPs a number of times to remove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle regarding wrong alignment but they did not comply with his request.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs, but to no effect.  The complainant also made many notes in the visitor’s book of the OPs but no satisfactory reply was ever received from them.  The complainant further submitted that during this period the tyres of the vehicle were also changed on 16.9.2009 and 50% of the cost was borne by the OPs.  The complainant has alleged that due to continuous visits to the workshop for getting the alignment corrected, he had to face a huge loss and mental agony. He, therefore, filed the complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to replace the car as well as pay compensation for mental agony and costs of litigation. 

3.                 After admission, notices were sent to the OPs.

4.                OP-1 filed reply and took preliminary objections that alignment of the vehicle was not a manufacturing defect.  Rather, it depends on various factors such as road condition and operating cycle of car. OPs contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle much less deficiency in service.  However, whenever the complainant visited OP-2 for alignment, service was provided free of charge to him.  On merits, OP-1 has contended that the problem of wheel alignment was first reported to the dealer only on 12.12.2008 when the vehicle had already run over 6249 KMs.  Subsequent to that, whenever the vehicle was brought to the dealership (OP-2), it had repaired the same free of charge in view of customer satisfaction policy.  The OP has submitted that the wear and tear of the tyres was normal and was not extensive and the alignment of the vehicle was not concerned with the accident in any way.  Even if the alignment is faulty, it affects the vehicle only if the vehicle was driven without hands on the steering.  It has further been submitted by the OPs that the company has borne 50% of the cost of the tyres as a gesture of goodwill towards the complainant and the complainant had given his satisfaction note regarding the vehicle.  Pleading that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that the odometer reading of the vehicle was around 52,369 kms. till April 2, 2010, means that the vehicle was safe to drive and bears no problem of alignments, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                OP-2 has filed a separate reply reiterating almost the same facts as OP-1.  OP No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.                 After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint, as stated above.

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully to decide whether the appeal should be admitted.  We are of the opinion that it is not a fit case which should be admitted for regular hearing. 

9.                 The contention of the complainant/appellant is that the tyres used in the car are worn out very early, showing that there was permanent defect in its alignment, which amounts to a manufacturing defect and therefore, the OPs are liable to replace the car with a new one and to pay him compensation.  In order to prove this contention he filed his own affidavit and placed on file the job cards showing that the alignment of the car was checked by the OPs/respondents a number of times and it was found to be defective. He also argued that the OPs paid him 50% of the amount of the tyres, which was replaced earlier than the desired period which means that they accepted that, there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. These contentions were not accepted by the learned District Forum and we also are not inclined to accept the same.

10.               The car is being used extensively by the complainant. In para No.6 of the memorandum of appeal he has prepared a chart showing that the car had already covered 81143 Kilometers till 9.2.2011.  The contention of the OPs is that alignment of the car depends on a number of reasons including the road condition, operating cycle of the car and how much the tyres are hit due to adverse road conditions.  It is therefore, not the duration but the mileage covered by the car and the road on which it is driven due to which the alignment gets defective.  There is however, no dispute about it that whenever the complainant went to the OPs for checking and correcting the alignment it was done by them free of charge.  The reason given by the learned counsel for OP is that the vehicle was within warranty.  However, merely because the alignment went wrong it cannot be said if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

11.               Much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the point that once the OPs had paid 50% of the cost of the tyres and the same amounts to admission of manufacturing defect in the vehicle on their part. We do not accept this contention. Simply because amount was paid or alignment was done free of charge, as a goodwil gesture extended by the OPs, cannot be construed as an admission of any defect in the vehicle.

12.               The complainant has already used the car for about three years and have travelled about 90,000/- kilometers, if there had been any manufacturing defect in the car the complainant would have not been able to use the vehicle so extensively as is being done by him.

13.               It is also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that he has to replace tyres with a new one quite often and it causes financial loss but the complainant has not produced any evidence to suggest as to what is the normal life of a tyre and in its absence we cannot say if the tyres are worn out early.  Otherwise also if due to extensive use of the vehicle, the tyres get worn out early, because of the reason that the complainant may be driving the vehicle on damaged roads or driving the same in reckless manner, the OPs cannot be blamed for that.

14.               Since the defect in the alignment depends upon numerous factors, including the driving skill of the driver and the condition of the road on which it is driven, it was necessary for the complainant to produce expert evidence to prove that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle due to which the alignment goes wrong.  He even moved an application dated 18.8.2010 before the ld. District Forum making a request for appointing the expert to inspect the vehicle and give his technical report. The OPs had not filed any reply to the said application when, on 20.12.2010, the ld. Counsel for the complainant made a statement withdrawing the said application.  It is, therefore, a case in which there is no expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect and rather the application moved by the complainant was subsequently withdrawn by him, presumably due to the reason that if the expert is appointed, it will become apparent that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The withdrawal of the application, therefore, requires an adverse inference to be drawn against the complainant.

15.               In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint and we do not find any merit in this appeal to admit it for regular hearing.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

26^th July, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

mp