BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case No. : 73 of 2017.
Date of Institution : 30.03.2017.
Date of Decision : 29.04.2019.
Mohan Devi since deceased wife of Shri Mukhtiar Singh resident of House No.87, Prem Nagar, Near Govt. Middle School Sirsa, District Sirsa through her legal heir :- Amandeep son of Smt.Mohan Devi wife of Shri Mukhtiar Singh, resident of 87, Prem Nagar, Near Govt. Middle School, Sirsa District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.M/s Padam Motors Private Limited, Opposite Traffic Police Chowki, NH No.10, Hisar Road, through its authorized person/Manager (Dealer of Chevrolet Company at Sirsa).
2.Ashwani Chevrolet, Ashwani Auto Motors, 2nd Floor, c/o Ashwani Automobiles O.P.Jindal Marg, Hisar Haryana-125005 through its Manager/ Proprietor/ authorized person (authorized distributor of company).
3.Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, Block-B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol-389351 District Panch Mahal (Gujrat) through its Director/ Authorized Officer.
4.Joy Honda, Hisar Road, Sirsa (Franchisee of the Padam Motors/Chevrolet Company) through its Manager/Responsible person.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.K.S.Gill, Adv. for complainant.
OP No.1 given up.
Sh.Aashish Singla, Adv. for Ops No.2 & 4.
Sh.B.L.Narula, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that the complainant had approached Op No.1 for the purchase of car model Beat who assured on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3 that in case of any defect/problem in the car during the guarantee/warranty period, they would get the defected vehicle from the site and then redelivered the same in Okay condition. As such, by making this allurement Op No.1 had delivered the car Beat CT Diesel bearing Engine No.10FCDZ141270106 vide delivery challan dated 26.09.2014. The vehicle was allotted registration No.HR24U-4354. . The guarantee and warranty of the said car was of three years or upto the running of 100000 kms. The complainant got the service of the car from Op No.1 and on every time got the mobile/air filter changed on payment of requisite charges. In the month of January, 2017, the engine of the car broke down and the complainant had contacted on toll free number of the company, which forwarded the complaint to Op No.4. The foreman of the Op no.4 visited the complainant at site and he after checking had reported that there was major defect/manufacturing defect in the vehicle and started repairing the same at the spot and Op No.4 also refused to issue to certificate regarding major defect in the vehicle. At the time of taking away the defected/dead stop car, a job card was issued wherein the problem had been mentioned as Down Engine and at that time vehicle had covered 53583 kms. The Op no.2 did not get the needful despite expressing of approval by the complainant through her family members. The dead stop vehicle was brought in the agency of Op no.2 on 11.12.2017 but the Ops committed inordinate delay in approval which was made on 23.01.2017 but till today the Ops have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant but despite that the Ops are claiming parking charges from the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
2. Notice was sent to the Ops, but the Op no.1 was given up by the complainant vide her separate statement dated 03.07.2017. Op No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The car in question was out of warranty as the complainant has failed to follow the regular service. On 23.01.2017, the approval qua falling of engine work within warranty or not was sought but on 30.01.2017, the GM cleared that the car was out of warranty due to reasons that the complainant has failed to replace the air filter timely, therefore, engine compression become weak. The complainant did not get the air filter replaced during service when the vehicle had covered 33854 kms and on 45527 kms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op.
4 Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that as per said schedule the air filter of the vehicle in question was required to be changed on every service i.e. on every ten thousand kilometers but in the present complaint, the complainant opted not to replace the air filter. The air filter was firstly replaced at the mileage of 32623 kms and then the same was to be again replaced on 45527 kms which means that the engine of the vehicle in question got improper/defected/diluted/less than the required air for a long period. The warranty of the vehicle in question was subject to a specific condition and in order to avail the benefit of warranty the customer was required to follow the service and maintenance schedule strictly. Due to negligence of the complainant, the engine of the vehicle required to be overhauled. The replying OP has been dragged in the said litigation illegally as there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant herself did not opt/permit for the replacement of the air filter at required intervals. The vehicle in question has crossed all the warranty limitation as the complainant herself has not followed the warranty terms and conditions, therefore, she cannot be claim warranty for the said vehicle. It has been further submitted that there is no expert opinion. Moreover, the complainant has not paid even a single penny for hiring any services. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. No separate reply has been filed on behalf of Op No.4 as learned counsel for the Op No.2 & 4 has adopted the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2 by making his separate statement on 04.08.2017.
6. During the pendency of the present complaint, Op No.1 was given up by the complainant vide her statement dated 03.07.2017. However, Mohan Devi had died and her son Amandeep was impleaded legal representative of the deceased in order to represent the deceased Mohan Devi, complainant.
7. Both the parties have led their respective evidence.
8. We have learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.
9. The perusal of the file reveals that the complainant in order to prove her allegations has furnished her affidavit Ex.C1, wherein she has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the compliant and also placed on record vehicle record sheet Ex.C2, registration certificate Ex.C2/A, standard limited warranty coverage Ex.C3, job card Ex.C4, approval for estimates Ex.C5 & Ex.C6, copy of email Ex.C7, clarification letter Ex.C8 and certification letter Ex.C9.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops No.2 & 4 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Parmish Garg Ex.R1, wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply whereas learned counsel for the Op No3. has tendered affidavit of Sh.Nitin Chugh, Ex.R2, in which he has deposed in terms of reply and also tendered documents service and warranty conditions Ex.R3,Chevy Central Compactor Ex.R4, Retailer Sales and Service Agreement Ex.R5, Standard provisions of the CSIPL Retailer Agreement Ex.R6 to Ex.R14
11. Undisputedly, the complainant (since deceased) had purchased a Chevrolet Car Model Beat from Op No.1 on 26.09.2014 and the same is having registration No.HR-24U/4354. The guarantee and warranty of the said car was of three years or upto the running of 100000 kms. After purchase of the car, the complainant got her car serviced from Op No.1 at Sirsa and on every service, he used to make payment of requisite charges to the Op No.1. As per allegations of the complainant, the Op No.1 used to change the mobile oil and air filter etc. and she had been making the payment against bill. In, January, 2017, the engine of the car had gone out of order and the complainant approached the toll free number of the company, who forwarded the complaint of the complainant to Op No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 paid visit at the site of parking dead stop car. On checking, it was found that there are major defect and manufacturing defect in the engine. Further, there are allegations of the complainant that respondent No.4, after thorough checking of the car by them being authorized franchisee/workshop of the company at the spot doing the service over the vehicle but respondent No.4 refused to issue the certificate regarding the major defect in the engine, through they assessed the same. The complainant continued to make correspondence with the Ops to get the engine problem of the vehicle solved. The vehicle had covered 53583 kms but the engine of the vehicle had done dead. As per the allegations of the complainant, the vehicle was very much within the warranty period.
12. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the Ops that the dead stop vehicle was brought in the agency of Op No.2 on 11.01.2017, but however, the complainant did not give her consent in order to carry out the necessary repairing of the vehicle and the vehicle was not within the warranty. Since, the complainant has not changed the air filter of the vehicle, as a result of which, the engine of the vehicle was seized. The repairing work was to be carried out at the consent of the complainant, for which, the complainant did not agree. The vehicle of the complainant is still parked with Op No.2 without any repair work. Rather the same has been more damaging outrightly.
13. The bone of contention between the parties is qua the non-replacement of the air filter by the complainant at the time of service of the vehicle, as alleged by the Ops, but however, the complainant has taken the plea that all the time she used to get the service from authorized service centre of the company and she used to get replace the mobile oil and air filter every time of service and had been making the payment against them. It is an admitted fact on record between the parties that till date, the engine of the vehicle has not been opened by the service centre of the company and until and unless the engine is not opened, it cannot be said that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to non-replacement of the air filter. It is only a proximate idea of the officials of the Ops No.2 to 4. The perusal of the evidence of the Ops reveals that they have not placed on record any expert opinion from which it could be presumed that the engine of the vehicle was seized due to non-replacement of the air filter but it is proved fact on record that the day when the engine of the vehicle was seized was covered 53583 Kms and as per terms and conditions, the warranty of the vehicle was for three years or upto 100000 kms. Since the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 26.09.2014 and the engine of the vehicle broke down on 11.01.2017, meaning thereby that the vehicle was within the warranty period and it was the legal obligation of the Ops to carry out necessary repair in the engine of the vehicle and to make it defect free.
14. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the Op Nos.2 &4 has alleged that outer body of the vehicle has been damaged due to long parking of the vehicle at one place, due to bad weather and it also needs repair and the condition of the vehicle is also getting deteriorated day by day and the Ops No.2 & 4 are also claimed parking charges from the complainant. It is settled principle of law that a manufacturer who sells his vehicle through his dealer is under legal obligation to provide free service to the consumers qua any defect within the warranty period or any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Since, the vehicle of the complainant was within the warranty period, as such, it was legal obligation of the Ops No.2 to 4 to carry out the necessary repair of the vehicle and to make the same defect free, without any costs, which has not been done, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
15. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops No.2 to 4 to open and overhaul the engine of the car of the complainant, even by replacing any part of the same and to make it defect free, without any costs. They Ops No.2 to 4 are further directed to carry out the necessary repair in the body of the vehicle even by replacing any part, which has been damaged due to long parking of the vehicle and make its good look and defect free, within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. If the engine of the vehicle is not repairable, then the Ops No.2 to 4 will replace the engine of the vehicle with new one. The Op No.3 is directed to make available all the necessary parts to Ops No.2 & 4 in order to carry out necessary repair in the engine and body of the car and the expenses of the repairing shall be borne by the Op No.3. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
