BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 116 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 22.8.2014.
Date of Decision : 23.1.2017.
Purshotam Phutela, Advocate son of Shri Babu Ram Phutela, resident of C-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Padam Motors Private Limited, Opp. Traffic Police Chowk, N.H. No.10, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory.
2. Chevrolet General Motors India Private Ltd., having its registered office at Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat State (India).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Car Sail-UVA of diesel version bearing engine No.133240291 from opposite party no.1 and at that time opposite party no.1 on behalf of op no.2 stated that the model of said car is 2014. The said car was purchased by complainant for a sum of Rs.5,08,000/-. At the time of delivery of the car, op no.1 on behalf of op no.2 assured that change of oil, maintenance will have to be got conducted by complainant at 15000 Kms, but vehicle started creating problem much before 15000 Kms. From the very beginning, there was complaint of low average and repeatedly complaint in this regard was lodged and many times the vehicle was checked by the mechanic of op no.1 and every time they assured him that vehicle will give good average as assured/prescribed by the company mentioned in the service book i.e. more than 20 KMPL and advised to get change the engine oil and oil filter etc. on 15000 kms. It is further averred that in the month of July, 2014 when complainant faced the same problem of low average and complained about it to the op no.1, the op no.1 out of its cleverness and shrewd enough nature tried to make him fool and stated that he has to replace the engine oil of the vehicle at the running of every 7500 Kms, whereas at the time of delivery of car they assured him for the change of engine oil at the running of 15000 Kms. On hearing this, he was shocked and raised protest upon which op no.1 lost temper and misbehaved with him and manager of op no.1 thrown letter dated 30.6.2014 on the face of complainant wherein they revised the schedule for the change of engine oil. The complainant on account of this conduct on the part of ops have to get change the engine oil and in this way has suffered pecuniary loss. The ops have caused inducement upon the complainant by supplying him the vehicle of 2013 model instead of 2014 model because the ops have charged the amount stating the vehicle of 2014 model. From the deep inspection of the vehicle, it is very much clear that all the parts of the vehicle are having the manufacturing year of 2013 and this act on the part of ops amounts to cheating and fraud. The complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.10,000/- on insurance, Rs.20,000/- on registration certificate and also spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- on the accessories etc. The complainant has undergone mental tension, unnecessary harassment etc. due to the unfair trade practices adopted by the ops and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from ops. Besides this, ops be also directed to replace the vehicle of 2013 model with 2014 or to refund price of the amount alongwith interest and complainant is also entitled to refund of the aforesaid amounts incurred by him. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply. It has been submitted that guideline by the company for the service of the vehicle at the running of 15000 kms are not disputed. However, receiving the subsequent letter from the company regarding the service of the vehicle at the running of 7500 kms and conveying of message to the complainant have been knowingly suppressed by complainant. At the time of sale of the vehicle, the complainant has been very much explained and conveyed the average of the vehicle only subject to comply of the conditions of the company which has been specifically mentioned in the book let i.e. the condition of the road where the vehicle is being plied, the experience of the driver, the condition of the weather, quality of the fuel used in the vehicle as well as the capacity of the passenger and also the use of speed and brakes. It has been further submitted that the complainant got the services of the vehicle from op no.1 and on each and every service of the vehicle, the job cards have been duly filled up and at the time of delivery after service, the complainant has put his hands in respect of his satisfaction qua the services provided by op no.1. The model of the vehicle has been calculated and drawn from the form No.21 or the other bills issued by the authorized agency of the company and in the present case, the perusal for form no.21 itself speaks that in the column no.8, the year of manufacturing has been mentioned as 01/2014 and as such the allegations regarding supply of old model car by the ops are totally false and frivolous. In fact the complainant in the guise of this complaint wants to change the car with some fresher model or any other. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its separate written version has replied that issue regarding mileage in the complainant’s vehicle was already taken up with complainant by op no.1 and it comes out to be as per specifications. As per the last visit of complainant on 3.2.2015 at the workshop of op no.1, the vehicle had run 23434 Kms. and there is no such problem regarding the mileage in the vehicle. The op no.2 keep upgrading its products and services basis feedback received through its teams and channel partners with a motive to provide a longer and safer ownership experience to its esteemed customers. During one such process, the op no.1 identified the necessity of revision in the periodic maintenance schedule of Enjoy Diesel/ Beat Diesel/ Sail Diesel with effect from 1st July, 2014, keeping in mind the current usage patterns and driving conditions, in view of above, engine oil replacement schedule has been revised from 15000 kms/1 year to 7500 kms/ 6 months (whoever occurs earlier) to maintain the performance and longevity of the engine components of vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that in the owner’s manual it is specifically mentioned that service schedule can be changed without prior intimation to customer. The complainant’s vehicle was manufactured in the plant of op no.2 in January, 2014. The chassis no. of vehicle is MA68FBAAEDTO26428. The alphabets in the chassis no. reflects the year of manufacture of vehicle i.e. A for 2010, B for 2011, C for 2012, D for 2013, E for 2014 and F for 2015. In General Motors (Chevrolet India), the 9th letter donotes the year of Make. It is very much clear that 9th digit of the chassis no. of vehicle is E which represents the year 2014. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 30.6.2014 Ex.C2, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, affidavit of Sh. Gagandeep earlier posted as employee/ Sales Executive in the agency of op no.1 as Ex.C4, copy of appreciation letter to Sh. Gagandeep by company Ex.C5, copy of another letter to Sh. Gagandeep Ex.C6. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Hardeep Singh, authorized person of op no.1 Ex.R1, copy of form 21 Ex.R2, copy of invoice Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 30.6.2014 Ex.R4, job cards Ex.R5 to Ex.R12, affidavit of Sh. Nitin Chugh, Regional Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of owner’s manual Ex.R14, copy of retailer sales and service agreement Ex.R15.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments of the complaint has prayed for acceptance of the complaint and in support he has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Hind Motors (I) Ltd. & Anr., Tata Motors Vs. Lakhbir Singh & Anr. I (2014) CPJ 120 (NC). On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties have contended that complainant has failed to prove his allegations. Moreover, in the registration certificate of the car in question, the month and year of manufacturing has been mentioned as January, 2014 and therefore, no financial loss has been caused to the complainant and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The first allegation leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties that at the time of delivery it was assured by the opposite parties that change of oil maintenance will be got conducted by the complainant on running of vehicle at 15000 Kms. but later on they changed the schedule stating that complainant has to change the engine oil for proper maintenance of the vehicle at 7500 Kms. and they issued letter Ex.C2. This version of the complainant is also proved on file through Ex.C2 and admitted by the opposite parties by filing their written versions. Both the ops admitted that they cleared to the complainant that he must have got the service of the vehicle at the running of 15000 kms. but after the purchase of vehicle , a letter has been issued to the complainant that he has to get the service of the vehicle at 7500 kms. instead of 15000 Kms. In this way, first allegation of the complainant is admitted one and there is no need to further discuss on this allegation.
8. The second and main allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties sold the vehicle in question to the complainant stating it 2014 model whereas the vehicle is of model of 2013. As per the version of the op no.1, the model of the vehicle has been calculated and drawn from the mentioning on the form No.21 or the other bills issued by the authorized agency of the company and from the perusal of form No.21, it is clear that manufacturing of the vehicle is January, 2014. As per the version of op no.2, vehicle is also manufactured in the plant of op no.2 in January, 2014. To prove this allegation, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and affidavit of one Gagandeep who was employee/ Sales Executive with the opposite party no.1. Said Gagandeep categorically declared in his affidavit Ex.C4 that it was within his knowledge that the car which was delivered to the complainant was of 2013 manufacturing. He advised the said Dealer/ Manager not to commit fraud with the complainant and not to make the wrong commitment with the complainant and not to deliver Model 2013 car with the contention of 2014 Model. The complainant is an Advocate and they have to suffer in case this fact came to his knowledge because every where the manufacturing year is mentioned on every part of the Car. He said that he will change/ replace the chassis number plate with the year 2014 instead of 2013. Thereafter, the dealing Manager got changed the plate of chassis number of the car and the same was delivered to the complainant and manipulated the Form No.22 and bills of the Car. Through Ex.C5 issued by opposite party no.2, it is also established on record that said Gagandeep was selected as Chevy Star of the company for the Month October 2014. The company also appreciated the working of said Gagandeep through Ex.C6. Further, as per the affidavit of Mr. Nitin Chugh, R.M of op no.2 placed on file as Ex.RW1/A, regarding the supply of 2013 model instead of 2014 model only op no.1 can give clarification, as op no.2 does not have any privity of contract with the complainant and op no.1 and op no.2 are separate legal entity and both works on principal to principal basis and in case if any amount charged by op no.1 in extra without any reason or the old car was supplied by op no.1, then only the op no.1 can be held responsible none else, because op no.1 is a separate legal entity and the same has its own legal existence, for which no vicarious liability can be slapped upon op no.2. In our view, from the declaration through affidavit Ex.RW1/A, it is clear that op no.2 is avoiding any responsibility regarding the supply of old vehicle to the complainant. From this it can also be presumed that it is within the knowledge of op no.2 that op no.1 sold 2013 model car instead of 2014 model and from the affidavit of Sh. Gagandeep Ex.C4 and affidavit Ex.RW1/A, it is clearly established that vehicle sold to the complainant is of 2013 model.
9. Now coming to third and last allegation of the complainant regarding the average of the vehicle, we are of the considered view that average of the vehicle depends upon various factors like condition of roads, driving and maintenance of the vehicle and in our view, complainant failed to prove this allegation through cogent and reliable evidence on the record.
10. As a result of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the car in question was purchased by the complainant in March, 2014 and he has filed this complaint in August, 2014 i.e. after a period of five months. Further, it is established on record through affidavit Ex.RW1/A that on 30.4.2016 a major accidental job has been carried out in the vehicle in which right hand side of the vehicle in question was approximately damaged fully. Moreover, the vehicle has crossed the warranty period and in our view, it is not the stage to order replacement of the vehicle. Considering upon all the aspects of the case, as discussed above we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the complainant is awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to be paid by opposite parties on account of model of the vehicle and change of service schedule of the vehicle from 15000 kms to 7500 kms. Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
