Delhi

New Delhi

CC/246/2011

Vikrant Rohilla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Chevrolet sales India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/246/11                                                                                                                                                                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Vikrant Rohilla,

C-225, Madhuban,

Vikas Marg, Delhi-92

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Chevrolet Sales India Private Ltd.,

        Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate,

        Haloi-389351, District Panchmahals,

        Gujarat, India

Also at:

        1^st FL, Plot no.15, Sector-32,

        Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India

 

2. Triumph Motors,

        (Khushi Tradex Pvt. Ltd.)

        No.E 13/29, Harsha Bhawan,

        GF, Connaught Circus, New Delhi

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainant is in consumer dispute with OPS over the quality and imperfection in a Chevrolet car ‘Cruze” from dealer OP2, by paying a consideration of Rs.13,30,793/-. It is alleged that car was purchased on 17.01.10, and at the time of delivery itself the vent of A/C was found broken, and dealer assured its replacement at Service Centre. On use of the car a particular odour coming from A/C and within a month on 14.02.14, he had taken the car to Shiva Motors vide job card no.008212, for problem of broken vent, alignment and gear shift problem. It is alleged that the defects were not rectified rather its mechanics caused some dents and damage to body. He took up the matter with OP1. It is alleged that on 27.02.10 and 27.03.10, he again went to the service centre for getting the defects rectified but was not successful, and he encountered suspension problem again on 02.04.10, and he went to M/s. Regent Automobile with same problem, where the suspension problem is confirmed by mechanic. The car condition deteriorated despite his changing tyres and floor mats on advice of service centre on 17.04.10, whereas old problem continued and rather shock absorbers are found faulty, but not replaced due to no spares. The respondent no.1, on approaching directed him again to Shiva Motors on 15.05.10, but no correct step is taken from suspension and other faults and same appeared to be internal manufacturing defects. He again went on 27.07.10 and 24.08.10 to, service centre for repair and rectification for suspension problem but nothing resolved. Thereafter the complaint is filed.

The OP in its reply has praised itself and its product, repeatedly and addressed to the problem and defects mentioned in the complaint. OP1 sates that it sell the ca on principal to principal basis and it is for OP2 to repair the defects. OP2 on its part has stated that it has removed defects. The reply is vague.

We have summarily considered the reply, evidence of the parties, written submission and material on record placed by parties, vast correspondence by emails between the parties, annexure with affidavit of evidence.

The job cards produced by complainant it themselves show that within few months of the car purchase, the complainant faced with the problem of suspension, defective shock absorbers, peeling off of paint of ca, dent and damage, alignment and has to replace tyres, but the problem with smell or odour removed and the complainant for 7 months of purchased has to repeatedly write to OP1 and take the vehicle number of times to service centre.

The Complainant was this robbed of total comfort, convenience and satisfaction of a new car purchased by spending huge money. The car could travel only 4000 km in 6 months, causing embarrassment and harassment to complainant repeatedly.

In our considered view, a new car costing more than 13 lakhs presenting so many problems immediately after purchase is an evidence of some imperfection in the car at the stage of its assembly and use of poor quality of parts by OP1, and inability of OP2, to repair such inherent defects which creeped in at manufacturing stage. We are of the view that an imperfect car was brought to market without proper quality check of OP1 factory.

  The Complainant requested for replacement of car on its part in the beginning itself bit no heed was paid and OP2 is unable to satisfy the consumer. However, at this stage after 5 years of purchase of car, it would not be possible to order replacement of car which might have covered more than 40,000 kms and particularly when no engine defect is encountered.

In the circumstances, the OP1 must compensate the complainant with monetary compensation to assuage the hurt sentiments of the complainant, his loss of comfort & satisfaction from a brand new product of OP, harassment and inconveniences.  Holding OP guilty of imperfect car, we direct OP1 to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to Complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- for litigation spent in last 5 years.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 26.02.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER