Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/24/1944

Dr.Amarbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Volvo Auto India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajat Malhotra

09 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:1944 dated 16.09.2024.                                     Date of decision: 09.12.2024.

 

Dr. Amarbir Singh, MD (Medicine) aged about 55 years son of Sh. Inderjit Singh, C/o. Jeevan Jot Hospital, Peerkhana Road, Khanna, Tehsil & Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Tower A, Ground Floor, Unitech Cyber Park, Greenwood City, Sector 39, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001, through its Manager.
2. M/s. Auto Kashyap (India) Private Limited, 20, Okhla Industries Estate, New Delhi 110020, through its Proprietor/authorized Signatory.
3.  M/s. Krishna Auto Sales, Village Khakat, Opp. Zimidara Dhaba, G.T. Road, Ludhiana-141120 through its Proprietor/authorized Signatory.                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Ankush Choudhary, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Chander Kalia, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Concisely put, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a qualified M.B.B.S., M.D. (Medicine) doctor and running Jeevan Jot Hospital, Peerkhana Road, Khanna for last many years. The complainant purchased a brand new car of Make VOLVO XC-5, D-5 2.4L, Diesel Automatic Transmission vide invoice No.AKI-079 dated 07.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.45,82,716/-for his own use from opposite party No.2, who is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being manufacturer, assures a warranty for three years on its cars from the date of vehicle is delivered to the first owner or for 60,000 miles, whichever comes first against any component failure attributable to faulty materials or workmanship during manufacturing and further provides that it shall be rectified free of charges by any of its authorized Volvo dealer. The complainant further stated that on persuasion of opposite parties, he also got the extended warranty for the car up to 06.03.2019 and paid additional payment. Extended warranty certificate was issued by opposite parties vide which the period of warranty was extended up to 06.03.2019 midnight. After the purchase of the car, the complainant has been regularly getting it serviced and maintaining it as per the schedule.

                   The complainant further stated that in the month of August 2016, while driving the car, he operated the door lock/unlock button in normal way by placing his arm on trim arm rest as per the requirement, but surprisingly, the said button went inwards towards the trim and sinked therein and could not be relocated to its original position which was an apparent result of poor craftsmanship. The complainant visited opposite party No.3 M/s. Krishna Automobiles, an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 at Chandigarh for redressal of said complaint and requested to replace the faulty switch but the representatives of dealer without carrying on any proper inspection of the faulty switch, declared that it is damaged by external force and it is not a manufacturing fault and shall not be replaced. The complainant told them about their warranty policy and requested to replace the switch but they refused to replace the same. According to the complainant, he prayed that as there is no mark or any scratch on the switch or trim which shows that it is manufacturing defect and poor quality material has been used and on repeated calls, the opposite parties finally agreed to replace the switch. On 02.09.2018, when the complainant was travelling with his family in the said car then its air conditioner suddenly stopped working and he had to drive the car with door glasses down and was embarrassed throughout the journey. He sent his car to opposite party No.3 at G.T. Road, Ludhiana who diagnosed that the car’s evaporator needs replacement as it had developed a leakage. The complainant requested opposite parties to replace the same free of costs as it was a manufacturing defect but opposite party No.3 refused to do so rather told the complainant that if the snag is to be rectified then he has to pay the charges. So the complainant was compelled to pay an amount of Rs.85,992/- to opposite party No.3 to fix the snag developed in the air conditioner. After that the complainant persuaded the opposite parties to refund the charges paid by him for fixing snag in the air conditioner which occurred due to manufacturing defect but they made lame excuses by stating that the car is out of warranty. However, opposite party No.1 had already issued an extended warranty certificate on 13.04.2015 covering the car under extended warranty up to 06.03.2019 and moreover, the car has run only 45,805 KM  but the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant and failed to accede to the genuine request of the complainant despite sending Emails. The complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment etc. on account of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which he is entitled for compensation. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.85,992/-  incurred by him on account of rectification of snag in air conditioner of the car and further to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3 despite service and as such, opposite parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.09.2019.

3.                Even none turned up on behalf of opposite party No.1 despite service and as such, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2020. However, later on, opposite party No.1 filed application for recalling the order dated 25.11.2020. The said application was allowed vide order dated 08.02.2022 by permitting opposite party No.1 to join the proceedings from the stage the complaint was pending at.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 26.09.2018 of Rs.56,964/- Ex. C2 is the copy of tax invoice dated 26.09.2018 of Rs.29,028/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of retail invoice dated 07.03.2015, Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 are the copies of receipts issued by Auto Kashyap India Pvt. Ltd., Ex. C8 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex. C9 is the copy of Extended Warranty Certificate, Ex. C10 is the copy of warranty certificate, Ex. C11,  Ex. C12, Ex. C27 to Ex. C31 are the copies of service and maintenance documents, Ex. C13 to Ex. C19 are the copies of warranty of the vehicle, Ex. C20 to Ex. C26 are the copies of Emails and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite parties No.1 tendered affidavit Ex. OPA of Ms. Payal Khanna, General Manager, legal adviser of opposite party No.1, in which it has been averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed u/s.26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been further averred that the vehicle has been used for almost 46,000 KM before any allegations of manufacturing defects were ever made. The vehicle was out of warranty period. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the opposite party has demanded charges for servicing the vehicle. The opposite party in its affidavit denied any deficiency in service on its part and also denied the other allegations made by the complainant. Thereafter, the counsel for opposite party No.1 closed the evidence.

6.                OP3 M/s. Krishna Auto Sales filed First Appeal No.705 of 2023 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh against the order dated 21.08.2023 of this Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 27.08.2024 allowed the said appeal and made the following observations:-

“16.  Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the District Commission. The case is remanded to the District Commission with the direction to decide the case afresh by considering the documents/evidence available on record and by hearing all the parties including the Appellant. The District Commission is directed to make all efforts to decide the case expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of two months.

17.     Parties are directed to appear before the District commission on 16.09.2024.”

 

7.                Despite specific direction issued by the Hon’ble State Commission, the parties did not appear before this Commission on 16.09.2024. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 18.09.2024 awaiting presence of the parties and for fetching the original file. On 18.09.2024, original file was received. Sh. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant but no one turned up for OP1 to OP3. As such, notice to OP1 to OP3 and their earlier counsels were issued for 30.10.2024. On 24.09.2024, the file was put up on application of OP3 and Sh. Chander Kalia, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OP3. However, on 30.10.2024, again nobody turned up on behalf of OP1 and OP2 despite issuance of notices to them as well as to their counsels. Fresh notices to OP1 and OP2 were issued. Sh. Ritesh Mohindra, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP1 on 25.11.2024. Further OP2 failed to appear despite issuance of notice and as such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2024.

8.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the appearing parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and affidavit produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by OP3.

9.                Admittedly, OP1 is a Product Manufacturer, OP2 is a Product Seller while OP3 is a Product Service Provider within meaning of Sections 84, 86 and 87 respectively of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant had obtained an extended warranty vide its certificate Ex. C9 for a period of two years from or up to 15000 IKMs in addition to warranty for three years extended by OP1 at the time of its purchase. Ex. C13 to Ex. C19 are the terms and conditions of the warranty accorded by OP1  and OP2 & OP3 being its authorized dealers and agents were also bound to honour these stipulations. Undeniably, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.85,992/- (Rs.56,964/- + Rs.29,028/- for parts and operations) as reflected in Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 to OP3 for replacement and repair of faulty parts of the vehicle during the validity of extended warranty. Obviously, the complainant was entitled to invoke the terms and conditions of the extended warranty but OP1 did not accede to his request.

10.              Now this Commission proceeds to determine the extent of liability of each OP, if any.

11.              At the time of adjudication of FA No.705 of 2023, the Hon’ble State Commission made following observations:-

“…….In the case in hand, the Appellant-M/s. Krishna Auto Sales being an authorized dealer could not have taken decision with regard to replacement and repairs of parts of the vehicle covered under warranty at his own level without any specific direction from the manufacturer i.e. M/s. Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd. More so as per Ex. C9 & Ex. C10, Extended Warranty Certificate was issued by Respondent No.2 i.e. Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Hence in view of the said extended warranty, the manufacturer of said vehicle cannot escape from its liability during the subsistence of the said warranty issued to the Complainant.”

 

12.              Perusal of record shows that the complainant had been representing OP1 for redressal of his grievance vide Emails Ex. C20 dated 03.11.2018, Ex. C21 dated 08.11.2018 but he received the acknowledgement of his representations on 13.11.2018 vide Email Ex. C23 whereby OP1 sought  time for investigation and further promised to respond at the earliest. Strangely, OP1 declared the car out of warranty being in its 4^th year of operation and overlooked the factum of extended warranty for the reasons best known to its representatives. Subsequently, despite becoming aware of extended warranty, they did not honour to the request of OP3 for reimbursement of repair charges. Further in their written version itself, OP1 continued to maintain the same stand to which the OPs knew it to be false. The complainant got issued the extended warranty through OP2 and he also entails the joint and several liability at par with OP1. Thereby the act and conduct of OP1 as well as OP2 amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice and rendering of deficient services.

13.              As far as the role of OP3 is concerned, it sought instructions for reimbursement from OP1 and as such, took necessary steps. Hence no liability can be fastened upon OP3. Therefore, the complaint as against OP3 deserves dismissal. However, in the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if OP1 and OP2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.85,992/- to the complainant with interest from the date of repair i.e. 26.09.2018 till date of actual payment along with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-. The complaint as against OP3 is dismissed.

14.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP1 and OP2 to refund the amount of Rs.85,992/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of repair i.e. 26.09.2018 till date of actual payment. OP1and OP2 shall further pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Liability of OP1 and OP2 to pay the aforesaid amounts is held joint and several. Compliance of the above order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against OP3 is hereby dismissed.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                       (Sanjeev Batra)                             Member                                          President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.12.2024.

Gobind Ram.