BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

       Complaint Case No. :164 of 2017

       Date of Institution    : 22.11.2017

        Date of Decision      : 16.08.2019

Surender Kumar aged 43 years son of Shri Shyam Lal Jangra Advocate resident of Murari Cinema Road, Sarai Chopta, Bhiwani.

……Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Shailesh Auto Mobiles, Showroom & Workshop, Near Hunamal Piao, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani through authorized signatory.
2. General Motors India Pvt. Regd. Office Block-B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol-289351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat through Managing Director/Authorized signatory.

2^nd Address, Customer Assistance Centre: Surinder Jakhar Bhawan, Iffco Complex, Plot No.3, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122001 through Authorized signatory.

      2a. Chevrolet Sales India Private Ltd. a company incorporated under the           Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Block-B,    Chandrapura             Industrial Estate Halol-389351 District Kanchmahls,             Gujrat corporate Office at Plot No.15, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon through authorized signatory.

3. Dr.Ishwar Gupta Prop/Partner of M/s Shailesh Auto Mobiles, Showroom & Workshop, Near Hunamal Piao, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani & c/o Ishwar Children Hospital, in front of Halwasia Vidya Vihar, Bhiwani.  

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:       Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:          Smt.Kiran Jangra, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 2a.

                        Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 3.

ORDER:

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are the complainant has purchased one car Chevrolet Beat TCDi BS4 bearing engine No. Z1162755GY7X0108, registration No.HR-16S-5064 from Op Nos. 1 & 3 for a sum of Rs.4,29,033/-  but the OP had mentioned the Ex-showroom price on retail invoice as Rs.4,49,000/-. At the time of purchase of vehicle, it was assured that the vehicle would give mileage of 25.44 KMs per litter but the same was giving mileage of 15 KM per litter. The complainant got 1^st service of the car done on 10.02.2017 and also got 2^nd service of the car done on 06.07.2017 but the officials of the OPs did not give any response as the vehicle was giving less mileage than the assured mileage besides other problems such as less AC cooling, Crack in windshield and fading of colour.  The complainant went to the agency for 3^rd service when the vehicle had run 10000 Kms but it was intimated to the complainant by the security guard that the owner has left the agency as the company has left India.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 26.12.2016 and as per rules prevalent in India any vehicle can run on road for 15 years but when the company has left India, therefore, the complainant has to face huge problems in case of service/repair and sale of the vehicle.  The Ops are bound to give after sale service but when the complainant had visited the service centre it was intimated that the company has left India on 31.12.2017 and further refused to provide any service. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Parmod Kumar as Ex.CW2/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C10.  

2.                                 On notice Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP Nos.1 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that free services were provided to the complainant on 10.02.2017 and 06.07.2017 and that too were provided upto the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant has also signed the satisfaction note. The Chevrolet Sales India had stopped the only sales of its product in India w.e.f. 01.01.2018 but the services of the vehicles are being provided to the customers as per schedule, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the replying Ops.  Objections about maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and concealment of material facts have been taken. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                                    Op No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that the complainant was informed time and again that he can get the service of the vehicle done from authorized centers situated at Rohtak and Hisar but the complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds. The price of the vehicle was Rs.4,49,000/- but the complainant got discount of Rs.20,000/- and has only paid Rs.4,29,033/-.  There is no privity of the contract with the complainant and the relation of replying OP with OP No.1 is on principal to principal basis, therefore, the answering Op cannot be held liable for the act and conduct of the Op No.1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Op as it has only stopped the sale of the vehicle in India and the authorized service centers would work as per required tenure. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                                    No separate reply has been filed by Op NO.2 (a) as it has adopted the reply filed on behalf of OP No.2 vide statement dated 08.04.2019 given by learned counsel for the Op No.2. The Ops have tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R8.

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

5.                     Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on  26.12.2016 from OP No.1 vide invoice Annexure C1. The vehicle in question was having warranty of three years or 1,00,000 Kms whichever is earlier as mentioned in Annexure C4. Undisputedly, the complainant got the free services of the vehicle from the authorized dealer.

6.                     The complainant has specifically come with the plea that the vehicle is giving less mileage than the assured mileage     by the Ops and the Ops are also failed to provide after sale service of the vehicle and even the complainant had to visit Rohtak for getting the service of the vehicle done despite the fact that he had purchased the vehicle from Op No.1 at Bhiwani.

7.                                 During the pendency of the complaint, an application under Section 13 (b) of the CP Act was moved, which was allowed by this Forum on 29.05.2019 and the Engineer/Mechanic of Workshop of Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani mechanical/technical branch was ordered to inspect the car bearing registration No.HR16S/5064 and to report about the average of the car besides other defects, if any, in the car in the presence of parties.

8.                                 The Local commissioner had filed his report before this Forum on 02.07.2019 wherein it has been mentioned that mileage of the car was checked manually by works manage and Foreman of the Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani and the initial odometer reading was 3673.8 and final Odometer reading after testing was 3731.4 in this way the vehicle was tested for 57.6 Km and the said vehicle consumes 3.91 ltr. of Diesel and the average of the vehicle comes out to be 14.73 Km/Ltr.

9.                                 It is pertinent to mention here that any consumer when he buys a new vehicle he is under the impression   that a new vehicle is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new vehicle would be defect free and it would give the performance as per the assurance of the dealer/manufacturer.  If the vehicle is defective and is not giving the performance as per assurance, the consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the same is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise  nature of defects or its cause or source or less performance.  It is not always necessary for the consumer to give expert testimony though if he does so it will add to the weight of the evidence. In the present case the Local Commissioner, which is a government institution specifically mentioned in his report that the vehicle was giving mileage of 14.73 Km/Ltr., therefore, this Forum has no alternate but to believe on the report of Local Commissioner. In the user manual, issued by the Op no.2, it has been mentioned that the fuel mileage as per ARAI, for petrol is 17.08 KMPL and that for the diesel is 25.44 KMPL.

10.                        Since, the Op No.2 has admitted that it has stopped the sale of vehicle in India and the complainant can get the service of the vehicle either at Rohtak or Hisar and the complainant got his car serviced from Durge Motor Service at Rohtak as shown in Annexure C9, which has not only caused monetary loss beside wastage of time without any fault on the part of complainant. 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).  Moreso, it was the boundened duty of the manufacturer/service centre and dealer to provide after sale service of the product in question within the local limits but it has not been done in the present case in this way, the Ops have also harassed the complainant physically as well as mentally and this aspect also cannot be ignored at any cost.

11.                         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 40 % of the vehicle insured declared value at the time of filing of complaint, as compensation, 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 from the default period.
2. To pay Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship and punitive damage due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.
3.  To pay Rs.7000/- (Seven thousand only) as counsel fee as well as litigation charges. 

The compliance of the order shall be made, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. 

Announced: 16.08.2019

(Saroj Bala Bohra),         (Parmod Kumar)         (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                         Member.                              President,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                               Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.