Haryana

Ambala

CC/322/2013

ONKAR MAKAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OBEROI AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS SHARMA

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBAL

                                                                      Complaint Case No. : 322 of 2013

          Date of Institution    : 04.12.2013

          Date of Decision      :  14.07.2017

 

Onkar Makan son of Shri Rajinder Makan resident of 67/5 Kismat Nagar, near D.C.Model School, Babyal, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Oberoi Automobiles (P) Limited, Near Jail Bridge, Ram Nagar, Baldev Nagar Camp, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City134007.
2. Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd, Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahals, Gujrat, India (Registered Office).  

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                        OP No.1 exparte.

                        Sh. Harjot Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Chevrolet SAIL LS TCDi Diesel bearing chasis No.MA6SFDAADDT002023 Engine No.10B7YZ13030137  bearing registration No.HR-01-AF-8483 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.8,38,480/- by making payment of Rs.2,92,480/- on HPA of Rs.546000/- from IndusInd Bank Ltd. The vehicle started giving problems from day one and it kept on creating problems regularly therefore, the complainant visited the service centre and showroom many a times. The Op No.1 had failed to remove the steering problem which the complainant had faced in August, 2013. The car in question had developed one and another  problems such as Hard steering, Parking Cameras, Doors and Wipes etc. It has been further alleged that the OPs did not show any interest in redressing the grievance of the complainant.  The car was brought to the Ops in August, 2013 with problem of steering but after repairs it developed same problem again in the month of September, 2013 forcing the complainant to approach Customer Care Service Centre on 18.10.2013. The OPs replaced the old steering with new one but after some days the car did not start on 12.11.2013. The complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 did not appear before this Forum and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.01.2014. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply wherein it has been submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the car in question as it has travelled about 9790 KMs till 28.08.2013.  The complainant was using the vehicle in negligent manner but to show good will gesture some parts of the vehicle, which were under warranty, were changed on 28.02.2013 and the complainant had also adjusted the bumper of the car on 22.06.2013.  The necessary services are to be provided by OP No.1, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable against it because the relation of OP No.1 with Op No.2 is on principal basis. It has been submitted that neither OP No.1, OP No.2 and Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited are/were partners/ legal representatives/dealer of the other nor the Op No.1 was granted authority to make any obligation on behalf of OP No.2 as well as Chevrolet Sales India Limited. The Op No.2 is only bound to repair the defects during warranty period. Steering problem was occurred for the first time on 21.06.2013  when the vehicle had covered distance upto 5019 and this problem could not rectified as the complainant was having no time for rectification. Parking problem does not affect the performance of the vehicle, therefore, it was not covered under warranty but despite that the same was rectified free of costs on 26.06.2013 upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant was very well redressed as all the things were repaired and rectified free of costs without harassing him. The vehicle is still running in good condition which is clear from vehicle history card and if there had been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle then the same could not have run even 1 KM. Preliminary objections such as non-joinder of necessary parties, complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and suppression of material facts from this Forum have also taken.  Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Op No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure RY and documents Annexure R1 to R10.   

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

5.                     It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from the OP No. 1 on 13.02.2013 as is evident through Annexure C3.  The complainant has come with the plea that the vehicle developed problems many a times, therefore, he had to visit the service centre/show room time and again for getting the defects removed. On the other hand, the OP No.2 has come with the plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and some parts, which were under warranty, of the vehicle had been changed free of costs  without harassing the complainant.  The complainant has tendered documents such as Proforma invoice (Annexure C1), copy of registration certificate (Annexure C2), copy of pollution certificate (Annexure C4), copy of insurance policy (Annexure C5 & Annexure C6), copy of delivery challan (Annexure C7), copy of temporary registration number (Annexure C8) and copy of cover note (Annexure C9). On the other hand  the Op No.2 has tendered documents such as copy of agreement (Annexure R1), copy of vehicle history card (Annexure R2), copy of owner’s manual (Annexure R3) and Invoice dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure R4).  The OP No.2 has stressed on the ground that the complainant has got alteration/replaced the wires which were being used for the functioning of some parts of the vehicle changed from outside than the authorized service, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit of warranty conditions but despite that some parts of the vehicle of the complainant were changed free of costs.  It is admitted by Op No.2 that some parts of the vehicle were changed. Though the same were changed free of costs till receiving of Rs.14,999/- (Annexure R4), therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had not faced mental agony and harassment due to break down of vehicle during warranty period.  The plea of the OP No.2 that the complainant had got alteration/replaced the wires which were being used for the functioning of some parts of the vehicle changed from outside than the authorized service is not supported by any authentic and reliable evidence because Annexure R5 to  Annexure R10 (photographs of the wires) do not show the age of wires whether these are new or old and what was the use of these wires in the functioning of the vehicle rather it appears that the Op No.2 in this way or that way want to avoid the claim of the complainant therefore, the complainant had to approach this Forum. It is worthwhile to mention here that the service centre/manufacturer are duty bound to provide after sale service but in the present case it appears that the Op No.2 has violated the provisions of Consumer Protection Act by not providing service after selling the vehicle.  Moreover, the service centre and manufacturer are not supposed to earn profit from the customers and they cannot be permitted to defeat the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act because after sale of the product it remains their duty to redress the grievance of the customer but in the present case the appearing Ops have failed to do so. On this point reliance can be given from case law titled as Nishad Nagesh Kulkarni Versus Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. I (2016) CPJ 584 (NC).  In the present case the Op No.1 has not joined the proceedings of this case and was proceeded against exparte. Perusal of the case file reveals that the defects in the vehicle were removed and the delivery of the same was delivered to the complainant during the proceedings of this complaint as the complainant had moved an application for rectification of the defects in the vehicle which were removed by the OPs and regarding this separate statement of Sh.Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Service Manager has also been recorded on dated 26.03.2014 and also delivered the same in working condition to the complainant by charging Rs.14,999/- from the complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not in  warranty period. Undisputedly, defects had occurred in the vehicle and the same were removed and the complainant is using the vehicle till today and after delivery of the vehicle he had not lodged any complaint qua performance of the vehicle, therefore, it cannot be said that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is very well established that the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OPs, therefore, present complaint has arisen. The complainant has specifically mentioned that from the first day the vehicle was not giving the desired results for which he had invested a huge amount but he has not produced any job sheet on the case file to prove his version that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle but it appears that the complainant was forced to pay Rs.14499/- on account of repair charges as well as of replacement of parts despite the fact that the present complaint was filed within one  year of the purchase of the vehicle which shows that the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OPs. 

6.                 In view of above said discussion and factual position,  we allow the present complaint with costs and the OPs are directed to comply the following directions, jointly and severally, within a period of thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 14499/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Failing which, they will be liable to pay further interest @ 12 % on the awarded amount for the default period.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as costs on account of litigation and harassment. 

 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 14.07.2017                                                              (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                            MEMBER

              

           

                                                                                       (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                             MEMBER