Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased a Chevrolet Spark-Petrol-LPG having car RC No.PB02-BT-0681 bearing Chassis No.MA6MFBMLBBT114804 and Engine No.B1051815256KC2 from Opposite Party No.1 against Invoice No.SVM/0478/2011-2012 on 12.01.2012, who is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3. Said vehicle was having warranty of 3 years. There is a manufacturing defect in the car and various defects were found in the said car while driving and the matter was reported to the Opposite Party No. 2 many a times, but they failed to remove the defects in the car in question and on the other hand, they started blaming the complainant that the car was not reported for service. The complainant made several attempts to sort the matter via e-mails and letters, but the complainant was disappointed at the adamant attitude shown by the staff of the Opposite Parties. There was an abnormal sound in the wheel segment on 11.2.2012, 25.2.2012, 3.12.2012 and 30.5.2013. The complainant took the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 2 and reported the said defects, but to no affect. Said vehicle was also having many other problems like stopping/ engine off automatically on road while driving, overheating, low average and other LPG problem, central locking defects and in this regard, the car was taken to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 20.7.2012, 3.12.2012, 30.5.2013, 3.6.2013 and 5.12.2013, but no defective parts were replaced by Opposite Party No. 2 and the car was handed over to the complainant with the same defects. But however, the complainant was compelled to pay while the car was within warranty period. The complainant approached Opposite Parties eight times for the repair till 5.11.2013 and said car remained in the custody of the Opposite Parties for 6 months, but till date the complainant got no response for the proper repair of the vehicle despite change of its parts on payment basis. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to replace the car in question with new one or in alternative the Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to remit the cost of the car to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the realization of the amount.
b) A compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac may kindly be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Parties, holding them liable jointly and severally.
c) The cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the car was never brought by the complainant with the help of crane or by any other means; actually whenever the complainant approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with a complaint in the vehicle the same has been removed satisfactorily. The answering Opposite Parties never refused to change the damaged parts intentionally during warranty period of 3 years. Since the complainant has not fulfilled the condition for availing extended warranty which was condition precedent. There was no requirement to change the injectors and the requisite service alongwith change of requisite parts was done free of cost. On 11.2.2013 the vehicle in question was brought in the working for sound from rear side vide job card No. 3317 and the same was removed. Again on 25.2.2012 the complainant visited the workshop with same complaint and then it was checked and removed vide job card No. 3481. Then on 20.7.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for first free service with complaint of over heating which was cured with full satisfaction. Again the complainant visited the workshop on 28.7.2012 for accidental job/ denting painting which was done vide job card No. 1484. Then on 30.12.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for 2nd free service with low average which was done. Thereafter on 30.5.2013, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties for paid service with complaint of central locking problem, right side rear wheel noise which was done with fully satisfaction of the complainant. On 3.7.2012 the complainant visited the Opposite Parties with complaint of central locking, missing on LPG which was removed by injector cleaning which was chargeable and free LPG service by changing the filter of LPG kit free of cost. There was no need to repair the parts. On 5.9.2013 the vehicle was brought for running repair with complaint of centre locking missing and smell on LPG for which full gas kit was checked and service made free of cost. The complainant did not bring the vehicle for periodical inspection after 30.5.2013 and missed the same, hence as per the schedule the complainant is not entitled to extended warranty. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party No.3 as throughout the complainant has not levelled any allegation against Opposite Party No.3. As and when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 with his grouse regarding the diaphragm filter and injectors, the same were ordered to be covered under warranty. Said vehicle in question was repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant and the same is still parked with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but the complainant is a person of offensive nature, who is more interested to peruse the present litigation, but not approaching the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to deliver the vehicle in question to him. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased on 12.1.2012 as per the complaint itself and now the vehicle in question had crossed the warranty limitation provided by Opposite Party No.3 for three years, which had been completed by the vehicle in question on 12.1.2015 itself, now after using the vehicle for three long years and after running it for a considerable distance, now when the vehicle is not under warranty, the complainant is misusing the process of law by filing the present complaint which can not be permitted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, Opposite Party No.3 is a manufacturer, who can not be dragged into the present litigation until unless some manufacturing defect is alleged and proved in the vehicle in question, the same can not be done at this stage, especially when the vehicle in question is being used by the complainant for the last more than 3 ½ years and the same is performing well and has run a considerable distance, in that circumstances, the same can not be stated to be having manufacturing defect. The main grouse of the complainant is that the complainant is demanding for extended warranty, the same can not be provided by the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Party No.3 or the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 never provide for any kind of extended warranty, the extended warranty can be provided by M/s.Corporate Warranty India Private Limited, which has not been impleaded as a party. Said relief can never been given by Opposite Party No.3 to the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. On merits, the Opposite Party No.3 took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C30 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Vivek Singh Ex.OP3/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.OP3/3 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and argued that the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Spark-Petrol-LPG having car RC No.PB02-BT-0681 bearing Chassis No.MA6MFBMLBBT114804 and Engine No.B1051815256KC2 from Opposite Party No.1 against Invoice No.SVM/0478/2011-2012 on 12.01.2012, who is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3. Said vehicle was having warranty of 3 years. There is a manufacturing defect in the car and various defects were found in the said car while driving and the matter was reported to the Opposite Party No. 2 many a times, but they failed to remove the defects in the car in question and on the other hand, they started blaming the complainant that the car was not reported for service. The complainant made several attempts to sort the matter via e-mails and letters, but the complainant was disappointed at the adamant attitude shown by the staff of the Opposite Parties. There was an abnormal sound I the wheel segment on 11.2.2012, 25.2.2012, 3.12.2012 and 30.5.2013. The complainant took the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 2 and reported the said defects, but to no affect. Said vehicle was also having many other problems like stopping/ engine off automatically on road while driving, overheating, low average and other LPG problem, central locking defects and in this regard, the car was taken to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 20.7.2012, 3.12.2012, 30.5.2013, 3.6.2013 and 5.12.2013, but no defective parts were replaced by Opposite Party No. 2 and the car was handed over to the complainant with the same defects. But however, the complainant was compelled to pay while the car was within warranty period. The complainant approached Opposite Parties eight times for the repair till 5.11.2013 and said car remained in the custody of the Opposite Parties for 6 months, but till date the complainant got no response for the proper repair of the vehicle despite change of its parts on payment basis.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.3 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the car was never brought by the complainant with the help of crane or by any other means; actually whenever the complainant approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with a complaint in the vehicle the same has been removed satisfactorily. The answering Opposite Parties never refused to change the damaged parts intentionally during warranty period of 3 years. Since the complainant has not fulfilled the condition for availing extended warranty which was condition precedent. There was no requirement to change the injectors and the requisite service alongwith change of requisite parts was done free of cost. On 11.2.2013 the vehicle in question was brought in the working for sound from rear side vide job card No. 3317 and the same was removed. Again on 25.2.2012 the complainant visited the workshop with same complaint and then it was checked and removed vide job card No. 3481. Then on 20.7.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for first free service with complaint of over heating which was cured with full satisfaction. Again the complainant visited the workshop on 28.7.2012 for accidental job/ denting painting which was done vide job card No. 1484. Then on 30.12.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for 2nd free service with low average which was done. Thereafter on 30.5.2013, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties for paid service with complaint of central locking problem, right side rear wheel noise which was done with fully satisfaction of the complainant. On 3.7.2012 the complainant visited the Opposite Parties with complaint of central locking, missing on LPG which was removed by injector cleaning which was chargeable and free LPG service by changing the filter of LPG kit free of cost. There was no need to repair the parts. On 5.9.2013 the vehicle was brought for running repair with complaint of centre locking missing and smell on LPG for which full gas kit was checked and service made free of cost. The complainant did not bring the vehicle for periodical inspection after 30.5.2013 and missed the same, hence as per the schedule the complainant is not entitled to extended warranty. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made. Ld. Counsel for 3 has argued that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party No.3 as throughout the complainant has not levelled any allegation qua Opposite Party No.3. As and when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 with his grouse regarding the diaphragm filter and injectors, the same were ordered to be covered under warranty. Said vehicle in question was repaired upto the satisfaction of the complainant and the same is still parked with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but the complainant is a person of offensive nature, who is more interested to peruse the present litigation, but not approaching the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to deliver the vehicle in question to him. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased on 12.1.2012 as per the complaint itself and now the vehicle in question had crossed the warranty limitation provided by Opposite Party No.3 for three years, which had been completed by the vehicle in question on 12.1.2015 itself, now after using the vehicle for three long years and after running it for a considerable distance, now when the vehicle is not under warranty, the complainant is misusing the process of law by filing the present complaint which can not be permitted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, Opposite Party No.3 is a manufacturer, who can not be dragged into the present litigation until unless some manufacturing defect is alleged and proved in the vehicle in question, the same can not be done at this stage, especially when the vehicle in question is being used by the complainant for the last more than 3 ½ years and the same is performing well and has run a considerable distance, in that circumstances, the same can not be stated to be having manufacturing defect. The main grouse of the complainant is that the complainant is demanding for extended warranty, the same can not be provided by the Opposite Parties, as the Opposite Party No.3 or the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 never provide for any kind of extended warranty, the extended warranty can be provided by M/s.Corporate Warranty India Private Limited, which has not been impleaded as a party. Said relief can never been given by Opposite Party No.3 to the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.
9. There is not the denial of the facts that the complainant has purchased a Chevrolet Spark-Petrol-LPG having car RC No.PB02-BT-0681 bearing Chassis No.MA6MFBMLBBT114804 and Engine No.B1051815256KC2 from Opposite Party No.1 against Invoice No.SVM/0478/2011-2012 on 12.01.2012, who is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.3. Said vehicle was having warranty of 3 years. It is also not denied by the Opposite Parties that there was an abnormal sound in the wheel segment on 11.2.2012, 25.2.2012, 3.12.2012 and 30.5.2013. The complainant took the vehicle to Opposite Party No. 2 and reported the said defects, but to no affect. Said vehicle was also having many other problems like stopping/ engine off automatically on road while driving, overheating, low average and other LPG problem, central locking defects and in this regard, the car was taken to the Opposite Party No. 2 on 20.7.2012, 3.12.2012, 30.5.2013, 3.6.2013 and 5.12.2013, but no defective parts were replaced by Opposite Party No. 2 and the car was handed over to the complainant with the same defects. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has argued that actually whenever the complainant approached the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with a complaint in the vehicle the same has been removed satisfactorily. The answering Opposite Parties never refused to change the damaged parts intentionally during warranty period of 3 years. Since the complainant has not fulfilled the condition for availing extended warranty which was condition precedent. There was no requirement to change the injectors and the requisite service alongwith change of requisite parts was done free of cost. On 11.2.2013 the vehicle in question was brought in the working for sound from rear side vide job card No. 3317 and the same was removed. Again on 25.2.2012 the complainant visited the workshop with same complaint and then it was checked and removed vide job card No. 3481. Then on 20.7.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for first free service with complaint of over heating which was cured with full satisfaction. Again the complainant visited the workshop on 28.7.2012 for accidental job/ denting painting which was done vide job card No. 1484. Then on 30.12.2012 the complainant brought the vehicle for 2nd free service with low average which was done. Thereafter on 30.5.2013, the complainant visited the Opposite Parties for paid service with complaint of central locking problem, right side rear wheel noise which was done with fully satisfaction of the complainant. On 3.7.2012 the complainant visited the Opposite Parties with complaint of central locking, missing on LPG which was removed by injector cleaning which was chargeable and free LPG service by changing the filter of LPG kit free of cost. There was no need to repair the parts. On 5.9.2013 the vehicle was brought for running repair with complaint of centre locking missing and smell on LPG for which full gas kit was checked and service made free of cost. The complainant did not bring the vehicle for periodical inspection after 30.5.2013 and missed the same, hence as per the schedule the complainant is not entitled to extended warranty. Hence, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that within warranty period of 3 years, the car in question was brought to the workshop of Opposite Parties number of times either repair by changing its spare parts or for its service. Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that within warranty period, the Opposite Parties have charged huge amount from the complainant on the ground of charge of spare parts. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has denied the averments made by the complainant that they ever charged the amount of spare parts within warranty period. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record the copy of bill Ex.C6, Ex.C9. Not only this, the complainant has also placed on record the letter written by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to the complainant Ex.C25, in which it is clearly directed to the complainant to pay the billing amount of Rs.5224/- and parking charges of Rs.37500/- and collect the vehicle as soon as possible. From the above, it is clear that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have charged the complainant for the cost of parts during the warranty period illegally and wrongly. Hence, we found that there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but however, the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to deliver the vehicle of the complainant after removing all the defects in it and by replacing the spare parts if required, to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 27.06.2017.
