Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This complaint is filed by one Mr. Rafiqul Hasan u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

The brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant purchased one car from the OP No. 1 on 28-11-2011 at a cost of Rs. 23,71,614/-.  Soon after its delivery, the Complainant discovered that the clutch and brake of the car was not working properly.  Therefore, he took the car to the service centre of the OPs, who did some servicing.  Yet, there was no improvement to the situation.  He then repeatedly urged the OP No. 2 to replace the defective parts.  The OP authority, by its letter dated 25-12-2013 informed that the break-pads got worn out and needed immediate replacement.  Thereafter, by letters dated 02-01-2014 and 21-01-2014 the OPs agreed to replace the defective parts on chargeable basis and offered 50% discount on the price of the said part. It is alleged by the Complainant that since it was a manufacturing defect, the sole remedy lies in replacement of the car which was, however, not agreed upon by the OPs compelling him to file this complaint.

OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV whereby it denied all the material allegation of the complaint.  It is the case of this OP that the Complainant lodged complaint for the first time on 22-12-2013, i.e., after the lapse of more than two years of purchasing the said car.  It is asserted by this OP that it is proven fact that longevity of break-pads and clutch plate largely depends on the driving habits and thus the same is considered as consumable and are not covered under the warranty provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle.  It is further stated that the vehicle had been thoroughly inspected at its workshop by the service engineer and the Complainant was advised to change the break-pads of the vehicle to overcome the problem.  It is also stated that though there was minor scoring on the disc, it was normal since the vehicle by then ran 19,168 kms.  The replacement of the break-pads though chargeable being consumables and not covered under the warranty, showing goodwill gesture, they offered 50% discount to the Complainant on the price of the break-pads to remove the alleged defect in the vehicle, but the Complainant made a unreasonable demand for replacement of the car, which was not sustainable.

OP No. 2 too contested the case and filed WV in its defence wherein it stated that the relationship between the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 is that of dealer and manufacturer and they work on principal to principal basis. Further case of this OP is that issues relating to booking, delivery, cancellation, servicing, customer relations etc. are independently handled by the OP No. 1.  As an obvious corollary thereto, this OP is not responsible for the acts of omissions of the OP No. 1, if any at all.

All the parties filed their respective Evidence on affidavit and were cross-examined by the other side by means of written questionnaire. 

The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant deserves any relief, as sought for.

Decision with reasons

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties, who argued at length in order to drive home their respective contentions.  Further, we have also examined the material on record carefully.

Undisputedly, the break-pads of the car is not working properly.  It is claimed by the OPs that after travelling 19,168 kms., due to wear & tear, the break-pads of the vehicle worn out.  According to the OP No. 1, once the said defective part is replaced, the problem faced by the Complainant would be sorted out.

It appears that the Complainant did not follow suit as was advised by the OPs. He did not do so despite the fact that OPs agreed to replace the defective break-pads at 50% cost, which was otherwise not covered under the warranty. 

According to Sec. 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

In this case, as we find, the moment Complainant pointed out the defects in respect of the clutch and break-pads of the car, the OP No. 1 immediately swung into action and after due inspection, advised the Complainant to replace the defective break-pads.  Since the said defective part was not covered under the warranty, by asking the Complainant to foot the bill, OPs did not breach any warranty condition.  Thus, we find no manner of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

In this regard, it is worth noting that although the defective part was not covered under the warranty, the OPs offered 50% discount on the price of the said part.  No doubt, the gesture shown by the OPs in this regard deserve bold appreciation. 

The Complainant though alleged manufacturing defect, the same is not established by submitting any expert report although it was incumbent upon him to prove his own allegation by adducing substantive proof. Further, as pointed out by both the OPs, we find that the car has already covered nearly 20,000 kms.  If the car was indeed suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect, he would certainly not be able to run  the car such long distance. 

That apart, although it is alleged by the Complainant vide his letter dated 21-12-2013 that from the very beginning, he faced problem with the clutch and break-pads of the car, not a single job sheet is filed by him to prove this.  In fact, it appears from the record that the first official complaint in this regard was lodged by the Complainant only on 21-12-2013, i.e., after more than two years since purchase of the car.  Although it is claimed by the Complainant that he lodged necessary complaint in this regard for the first time on 09-04-2012, no material proof is furnished in this regard. Even if it is assumed that he indeed lodged such complaint, it is noteworthy that at that time also, the vehicle was more than 4 months old.  It is hardly believable that one would not face any discomfort while running a vehicle that is suffering from some sort of manufacturing defects.

To sum up, the allegation of manufacturing defect remains unproven. For this reason, in our considered view, the Complainant deserves no relief.

The complaint, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the complaint stands dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the OPs are impressed upon to offer due discount to the Complainant as agreed upon by them, in case the Complainant agrees to do necessary repairing.