CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.416/2005

SH. NEERAJ KUMAR JAIN

R/O C-576, VIKAS PURI,

NEW DELHI

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                  

Vs.

M/S SILVERTONE MOTORS (P) LTD.

D-179, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                 Date of Order: 30.08.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Skoda Octivia car for Rs.10,84,982/- from OP on 29.01.03.  However, the paint of the said car started chipping off just after 4-5 months of its purchase.  Complainant informed the Service Manager of OP Mr. Sanjay and also complained to Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Sandhu.  Complainant was informed telephonically that company is ready to repaint the said car.  It is not out of place to mention here that repainting not only reduces the value of the cars rather it is difficult to resale the same.  Even otherwise complainant had invested Rs.12 lakhs approx. with an idea to have the excellent car.  The chipping of paint indicates the quality of the product and its worth.  It is submitted that OP is liable to replace the car and complainant served a legal noticed dated 10.12.03 on OP.  However OP failed to comply with the same hence this complaint is filed.  It is prayed that OP be directed to replace the said car and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.

OP in the reply admitted that the aforesaid car was purchased from OP on 29.01.03, being the authorized dealer of Skoda Auto India.  Complainant made a complaint in the end of November 2003 that the paint of his car is chipping off.  On this, complainant was advised to bring the car to OP for inspection and if there is any problem in the vehicle the same is to be rectified by OP.  Complainant never visited to OP despite many requests.  Complainant issued a legal notice to OP dated 10.12.03 which was duly replied by OP on 29.12.03 through which OP offered complainant to resolve the grievances of complainant.  However, after receiving reply of the legal notice, complainant never turned back to OP.

It is stated that if there was any defect in paint then it can be rectified by sending the vehicle to the company i.e. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd..  OP also requested to repaint the car of the complainant but complainant stated to OP that he will not bring the car in the company and will not allow to rectify the defect in painting of the car as it will decrease the value of the car.  In fact there was no defect in the car and OP was never shown any defect in the car as the same was never produced before OP.  It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  The legal notice was duly replied even then the vehicle was not produced for inspection.

In the rejoinder complainant denied that he never produced the vehicle before OP for inspection.  It is submitted that the car was produced by complainant and was checked thoroughly by representatives of OP who after inspection admitted the fault and advised the complaint to leave the vehicle for repainting.  OP represented that complainant would get back the vehicle after one month or so as the vehicle was to be sent to the company for repainting.  It is not out of place to mention here that once the car is repainted, the resale value of the car decrease substantially. 

.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

It is an admitted fact that the car was purchased on 29.01.03.  It is also admitted by OP that in the end of November 2003, complainant informed OP that paint of the said car is chipping off whereas the case of complainant is that he informed after 4-5 months of purchasing regarding chipping of paint of the car.  There is nothing on the record to show that any such information given to OP.  The only letter placed on the record by complainant is dated 16.11.03 sent to OP wherein it is stated that he has verbally complained to Service Manager Mr. Sanjay about six months back about chipping of the paint in the whole body and he already complained to Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Sandhu about the same.  If it was so, what prevented complainant to produce the vehicle before OP.  Why complainant waited for six months to report the matter.

It was for the complainant to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Though complainant has placed on record the photographs of the car showing that the paint of the car is chipping off but the question remains whether complainant produced the car before OP for inspection to find out the reason for the same. 

OP in reply categorically stated that the vehicle was never produced for inspection.  Complainant has nowhere started in the complaint that the vehicle was produced for inspection rather he has stated that  he informed Mr. Sanjay about chipping of the paint and OP telephonically informed that they are ready to repaint the car.  It is stated that repainting not only reduces the value of the cars rather it is difficult to resale the same. 

In the rejoinder complainant stated that he has produced the vehicle for inspection but this fact was not stated in the complaint.  Complainant filed affidavit even in that also he nowhere stated that he has produced the car for inspection before the OP.  There would have been deficiency in service if OP has not rectified the defect even after the vehicle was produced before them.  It is significant to note that complainant has not made manufacturer as a party.  OP is only a dealer of Skoda Auto India.  Unless the vehicle is produced before the manufacturer and manufacturer comes to the conclusion about the reason of chipping of the paint and if even thereafter the defect is not cured then only the manufacturer can be held guilty of the deficiency of service. 

In our mind the vehicle was never produced before OP for inspection hence it cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

Keeping in view the above facts, the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(D.R. TAMTA)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT