DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

=================

Gireesh Goel s/o Shri M.M. Goel, R/o H.No.3343, Sec.23-D, Chandigarh.                    

---Complainant.

Versus

1.            M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star, Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-431001 Maharashtra

2.            Krishna Auto Sales, through its authorised person/owner, 177-E, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Jagvir  Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                      Sh. Gireesh Goel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only).

2.                      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Skoda (Laura) car from opposite party No.2. According to the complainant the car suffered from many defects from the date of its purchase.  It has been averred that on 18.5.2007 the air condition fan of the car was changed as it was suffering from defects.  However, still the defect could not be removed and the complainant got the car checked on 17.11.2007 from the workshop of opposite party No.2 and the A.C. compressor was changed.  According the complainant, the opposite parties failed to cure the A.C. cooling problem and again changed the A.C. compressor on 12.6.2009.  It has been averred that on account of continuous defect in the A.C. other defects occurred due to which the complainant was forced to pay a huge amount of Rs.1,21,185/- on 22.10.2009.  When the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.2 it changed the Air Condition fan on 27.7.2010.  However still the defect could not be removed and ultimately on 16.5.2011 after detailed checking opposite party No.2 found that the A.C. of the car was not working and the Mechanic/Engineer advised the complainant to get the entire air conditioning system replaced as the defect could not be removed.  The complainant served a legal notice dated 3.10.2011 on the opposite parties  in response to which he received reply dated 9.11.2011 stating therein that the warranty of the car had expired.  Hence this complaint.

3.                      In its written reply opposite party No.2 averred that the warranty was with regard to manufacturing defects only and the same was available for two years from the date of purchase.  It has further been averred that as and when the car was brought with the complaint of defects in the air conditioner, the same were rectified either by way of servicing the p[arts of replacing the defects parts under warranty upto 15.1.2008.  It has further been averred that even thereafter the complainant availed 50% rebate as a goodwill gesture when his AC with condenser was replaced on 12.6.2009.  It has been pleaded that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite on 30.5.2006, 3.8.2006, 25.10.2006, 19.9.2008, 8.6.2009 and 17.2.2010 to carry out accidental repairs. It has further been pleaded that the major amount of Rs.1,21,185/- had been spent by the complainant on account of replacing the turbo charger after a period of more than 45 months which only happens on account of adulteration in fuel and as there was no warranty so he had to spend the amount.   It has been denied that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect or that there is any deficiency in service on its part.  The remaining averments have been denied being wrong. 

4.                      Opposite party No.1 did not file its separate written reply and adopted the written reply filed by opposite party No.2.  Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties gave statement to this effect on 7.6.2012.

5.                      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                      The Complainant while seeking relief in the present complaint in para 7 has categorically mentioned that the car in question sold by the Opposite Parties had a manufacturing defect in the air conditioning system and had charged three times more price of the parts replaced in the car. The Complainant claims that he had spent Rs.1,21,185/- to get the defect in the air conditioner removed, as well as spent another Rs.48,375/- in order to get the faulty turbo system replaced from outside. The car in question was purchased by the Complainant in the year 2006 on 16.1.2006. Though the Complainant in para 2 of his complaint claims that the air conditioner in question was having a manufacturing defect since beginning, but when for the first time the fan of the air conditioner malfunctioned on 18.5.2007, the same was repaired as per Annexure C-2. Meaning thereby, that the problem with the air conditioner had actually accrued after 1½ years of the purchase of the vehicle. The Complainant has not alleged any defect or his registering of his grievance about the air conditioner during this intervening period of 1½ year.  It is also noticed the Opposite Parties charged only half the amount as per partial warranty conditions from the Complainant about this repair as the equipment repaired was beyond warranty period of one year. Thereafter, the air conditioner of the vehicle in question again required repairs on 17.11.2007, which was again repaired under partial warranty condition. Thereafter, the air conditioner in question was checked during routine check-up on 8.1.2011. Meaning thereby that the air conditioner worked without any problem for nearly 3 ½ years. It was on this occasion that the Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,185/- to get the same repaired from Opposite Party No.2. Hence, to our mind, the equipment that has served the Complainant for as many as 05 years had actually required repairs only due to normal wear & tear and not due to manufacturing defect, as the parts replaced on the last occasion were actually replaced for the first time and not repeatedly since its purchase.

7.                      The second cause of action attracting deficiency in service as claimed by the Complainant is with regard to the fact that the Opposite Party while repairing the turbo charger assembly costed him Rs.1,23,632/-, which being out of warranty period. However, as the equipment need to be replaced, the Complainant on the subsequent occasion, had to get the same repaired from outside, as he claims to have come to know that this equipment in the open market was priced at Rs.43,526/- only, which the Complainant ultimately got repaired from outside and not from Opposite Party No.2. The claim of the Complainant that the charging of Rs.1,23,632/- for a spare part, which in the open market costed him Rs.43,526/- amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. However, the Complainant did not bring on record any document to prove that the equipment installed by the Opposite Parties on the first occasion was of the same make & type, which he ultimately got replaced on the second occasion from the open market. However, to our mind, we feel that it is the right of the vendor to demand the price of the product he is selling and the Complainant in order to substantiate an unfair trade practice should have brought on record some proof that a similar vendor of the same parent company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 were pricing this equipment differently.  Hence, we feel that the allegations of the Complainant about the price variation in a product sold by the Opposite Parties, as compared to the one sold in the open market, does not hold ground.

8.                      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.                                       

9.                      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th January, 2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER