Delhi

New Delhi

CC/856/2010

Hina Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. General Motors Corporation & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

                        CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                  (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                     ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                             NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

            Case No.C.C./856 /2010                                                Dated:

            In the matter of:

            HINA SINGH

            W/o Shri Gaurav Dewan

            R/o O-21, Jang Pura

            New Delhi

                                                                                                            …… Complainant

 

                                                                        Versus

1. General Motors Corporation

301, Renaissance Centre

Detroit Michgen

U.S.A

     2.   General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Plot No. 15, First Floor, Secot-32,

            Mawana Sugar Building,

            Echelon Intuitional Area,

            Gurgaon - 122001

             Also at:-

3. M/s Triumph Motors

            Situated at E-13/22, Ground Floor, Harsha Bhawan

             Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi       

                                                                                                       ……..Opposite Parties

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA – PRESIDENT

 

                                                                 ORDER

 

                    The complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed  by the complainant  alleging that the complainant has been cheated by the opposite party. The opposite party No. 1 is the principal manufacturer of Chevrolet Aveo car worldwide and Opposite Party No. 2 is the representative of Opposite Party No. 1 in India and Opposite Party No. 3 is the dealer of Chevrolet Car.

                    The complainant wanted to purchase a new comfortable car and being impressed  by the repeated advertisements of the car of Opposite Party, decided to purchase a Chevrolet Aveo. He made the full payment of Rs. 6, 19, 405.00/- on 05.07.2008 ( Rs. 50,000/- paid in advance for booking the car included in this price) for purchase of a new Chevrolet Aveo 1.4 car to Opposite Party No. 3. The car bearing registration no. DL-2C-AG-1108 was delivered to the complainant on 16.07.2008 at about 7 PM by Opposite Party No. 3. Before booking the car the complainant was given a test drive on another Chevrolet  Aveo car by Opposite Party No. 3 through their employee and being satisfied  with the same the complainant decided to purchase the said car. However, no test drive of new car was given to the complainant.

                    After taking delivery of the car and driving it for half kilometer on 16.07.2008 itself, numerous defects were noticed by the complainant.  The car was pulling towards left side as such its alignment was not right. The car was not picking the speed when the air conditioner was on.  The complainant immediately took back the car to the showroom on 16.07.2008  itself but he found the showroom closed. The complainant had already planned a foreign trip to Switzerland and left for the same on 17.07.2008 and as such her brother in law Sh. Saurav Dewan took the car to showroom on 18.07.2008 to Wazirpur which is 10 km away from the house

of the complainant. The workshop people assured Mr. Dewan that they had removed the defects and the car was brought back.

                    On return, complainant made a call to the workshop people and told about the defects, she was informed that car would be picked up from her house and accordingly on 12.08.2008 the car was picked up and returned to the complainant’s house in the evening. However, the defects remained and the car was still pulling towards the left side. The complainant narrated the defects of the car to the customer care service of the OP. Again on repeated request, the car was taken to workshop on 15.01.2009.  The workshop carried out certain work however, the defects could not be  removed on 13.03.2009. It was specifically written on the job card that car was pulling towards left side, noise was coming and pickup was poor when  AC was on in the running car.

                    One Mr. Bahl, the workshop incharge in order to satisfy the complainant  asked the mechanic to check the car, and told that  left shocker was not working properly and needed to be changed Despite this,   defect persisted on 24.03.2009. However, the complainant being not satisfied and no help came from Mr. Behl for picking up the car again on 31.03.2009. The car was again taken and kept for 5 days. It was replied that alignment and suspension system has been changed 8 times  with the help of special technical staff from General Motors. However, these defects could not be removed.

                    The complainant was fed up with the defects, he wrote a letter to OP-2 dated 24.04.2009 with the request to replace the defective car. Reminders were sent to the OP however, nothing was done by the OP accordingly a legal notice was given by the complainant to the Counsel. Despite meeting the General Manager the defects could not be removed and ultimately this complaint was filed.

                    The OPs were noticed. The OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte on 26.04.2012 by Ld. Predecessor of this Forum. OP-2 and OP-3 filed written statements in their respective versions.  OP-2 and OP-3 stated that the subject vehicle was wholly prefect and road worthy. The allegation of the said vehicle being defective, is wholly misconceived and denied by the OPs. The vehicle is believed to have done 30,000 kms in 34 months from the date of purchase. This fact is sufficient and convincing to rebut the allegations of the complaint. It is stated that on many occasions the work of wheel alignment and balancing was undertaken.  On 15.01.2009 the subject vehicle has already done 5183 kms.  All the job cards filed by complainant carries  details of the work done  by the OP.

                    The OP had made absolute compliance with warranty policy of the subject vehicle. The relief sought by the complainant is ill perceived and legally untenable i.e. the replacement of the vehicle.  This is not envisaged by the warranty policy which constitutes the touchstone of the contract entered into between the parties.

                    It is stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed. Even in the written statement of OP-3, it is further stated that the perusal of the job card of the said vehicle did not show any defect. There was any no inherent defect in the vehicle but were curable.

                    The complaint did not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and is exclusively tribally by the Civil Court and as such the complaint should be dismissed. The reply of the OP-3 was on the reliance of OP-2.

                    The complainant and OP-2 and OP-3 has filed their respective affidavit in evidence. The Forum has heard the argument of Sh. D.S. Dalal and Counsel for complainant Sh. Vipin Singhania for OP-2.

                    The Forum has gone through the affidavit in evidence filed by the parties as well as arguments advanced by the parties. The certain facts are undisputed such as the purchase of the vehicle from the OP-3 on 16.08.2008. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was taken back on the same day within half an hour to the showroom for mentioning the defects in the vehicle. It is also on record that the complainant and its representatives has to visit the showroom/ workshop of the OP on many occasions. The complainant had been persistently complaining in respect to pulling of the car towards left side.  It is a common knowledge that the newer vehicles are built up with high speed engines and it such fast moving vehicle is pulling towards left side from the very first day, this shows that

the alignment of the vehicle was not properly looked after.  This defect can be taken on the basis of certain facts such as the shocker of the vehicle was working properly or the engine was not mounted on the chasis perfectly. The complainant was also complaining the slow pick up of the vehicle when the A/C was on.  The OP has taken a stand that there was no inherent defect or manufacturing defect in the vehicle, so the vehicle cannot be replaced. However, the Forum feels that if the vehicle was taken to workshop again and again and the complainant remained dissatisfied  with jobs done by the OPs, there was deficiency in services rendered by OP while repairing the vehicle. She was never satisfied in respect to pulling of the vehicle and its overall performance.

                    The OPs are bound by the terms and conditions of the parties and were liable to remove the defects which were troubling the complainant from time to time. Undoubtedly, the complainant was driving its car and the distance is truly mentioned by the OPs to the extent of 30,000 kms  but it also on record that she remained unsatisfied throughout this period. Moreover, it is not expected of a consumer to take his car again and again to workshop for removing defects.

 

                    In view of the fact that vehicle was purchased  11 years back and has already done 70,000 kms as stated by counsel of the complainant Sh. D.S. Dalal. Accordingly, prayer Clause 1 of the complainant allowed but the Prayer Clause 2 in respect to pain and suffering by the complainant has to be considered by this Forum.

                    The OP-2 and OP-3 in their written statement had admitted that vehicle was brought to the workshop on many occasions and job cards were placed on record.  The Forum considers that there was a deficiency on the part of OPs to rectify the problems faced by the complainant. Under these scenario, it is very difficult to quantify the harassment caused to the complainant due to sufferings sustain by her, so, the Forum has to quantify the harassment in monetary terms on its own.  Approximately, the vehicle was taken to the workshop almost 7 to 8 times for rectifying the defects. Accordingly, this Forum deems it fit to grant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for the pain & sufferings and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to be paid by OP No. 2 and 3 in equal proportion.

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 07/08/2019.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

          (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                            (HM VYAS)

        MEMBER                                                                                       MEMBER