Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/18/2022

M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Vijay Laxmi Jaiswal - Opp.Party(s)

Arjun Kundra Adv.

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	18 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	23.02.2022
Date of Order	:	13.06.2022

 

M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at : S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Chennai – 603204 (represented through authorised representative).

…..Appellant /Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

 

1. Vijay Laxmi Jaiswal d/o Sh.Ganga Saran Jaiswal, r/o Quarter No.3004, Type-9, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

                                                … Respondent No.1/complainant.

2. Bhagat Ford (A.B.Motors Pvt. Ltd.), 53, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                … Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1

3. CEAT India Pvt. Ltd., 463, CEAT Mahal, RPG House, Doctor Annie, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Near Old Passport Office, through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                                 …Respondent No.3 /Opposite Party No.3.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.1 (on VC).

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 06.04.2022.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 against impugned order dated 11.02.2020, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Commission), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint No.312 of 2018 against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, with the following directions: -

“12. In view of above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua OPs 1 & 2. Ops 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to refund sale price of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.6,99,199/- to the complainant upon return of the vehicle by her. However, no interest is being awarded on this amount as the vehicle is in the custody and control of the complainant and she used it at least for 1 ½ years prior to the date of institution of the present consumer complaint.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

13.  This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of amounts mentioned at Sr.No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
14. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved qua OP-3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

2.              The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a new Ford Ecosport car vide invoice dated 14.01.2017 from Opposite Party No.1 (Bhagat Ford) manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 (Ford India Pvt. Ltd.) by taking loan of Rs.7.00 lakhs from her employer i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India.  It was stated that from the very beginning of purchase of the said car, one front tyre started giving problem and the same was inspected from M/s Saluja Motors, who thereafter referred to CEAT tyre showroom, which was found defective, but no action was taken by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, the complainant had to spend Rs.6,000/- from her own pocket to purchase new CEAT tyre of Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that after replacement of the said tyre, front screen of the speedo meter of the car was showing image and the car was got checked and defect was found in the air bags, but on being checked, it was told wire was cut by mouse. It was further stated that after some days, wire was found burning when the heater was switched on during winter, as such, the complaint was lodged and the said car was taken to Opposite Party No.1 with the problem of burning smell in the cabin and heater and job sheet dated 05.01.2018 was prepared. It was further stated that the air conditioner of the said car was not working ; pick-up in the car was not proper and on change of gear speed became slow rather than picking up the speed. The said matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2 but it did not resolve the defects.  It was further stated that the said car was having manufacturing defects as the same were appearing again and again, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot. Hence, the complaint.  

3.             In their separate written statement filed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, it was admitted regarding purchase of the said car from Opposite Party No.1, which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.2.  They further pleaded that as and when the defects were noticed, corrective measures were taken and these were removed and submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the car, in question.

4.             Opposite Party No.3 did not appear, despite service. Hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.10.2018.

5.             We have heard Counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record.

6.             Counsel for the appellant (Opposite Party No.2) has submitted that Director, Punjab Engineering College and the committee constituted by it does not have the adequate qualification to become appropriate authority, as the expert, by no stretch of imagination, and is not equipped with the required skills and tools for carrying out proper analysis and or test of the vehicle to determine the alleged manufacturing defect. He further stated that ARAI is the only body, which has been recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India to be a Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIRO). He further submitted that all the cars manufactured by the appellant are put to strict quality tests and is made available to the customers only after the car passes those strict quality tests at factory. He further submitted that neither the notice was issued to the appellant by the Director, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh nor their Counsel were intimated of the date of inspection. He further submitted that there is neither any Engineer’s (expert) report nor any other convincing material which has been filed or placed by respondent No.1 before District Commission. He further submitted that the obligation of the appellant is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to suffer from any manufacturing defect within the limit of the warranty through expert evidence and in the absence thereof, the car cannot be said to be having manufacturing defect. He further prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

7.             Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the said car is having manufacturing defect, as such, prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 (manufacturer).

8.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by Counsel for the contesting parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

9.             It is the admitted fact that earlier the appeal bearing No.68 of 2020 filed by the complainant for granting interest and enhancement of award and appeal bearing No.72 of 2020 filed by M/s AB Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Bhagat Ford) – Opposite Party No.1, were dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 09.12.2020.

10.           The first point for consideration before us is as to whether Punjab Engineering College, UT, Chandigarh is capable/competent to examine the vehicle or not. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was having multiple defects and the said defects began after 5-6 months of its purchase. After repeated requests and visits by the complainants within the warranty period, the dealer as well as manufacturer failed to cure the defects permanently. Even to prove the said defects, permission was granted to inspect the vehicle by the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. The vehicle was inspected by Dr.Sushant Samir – Professor, Prof. Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engg. Department, PEC, Chandigarh and Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. (at page No.107 of the record of the District Commission). Perusal of the report shows that the complainant as well as Sh.G.S.Thakur, Service Operation Head, Bhagat Ford, Chandigarh were present during inspection and test drive. The vehicle, in question, was inspected and test driven for 43 Kms.

                By filing this appeal, the allegations have been levelled by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 is that Director, Punjab Engineering College and the committee constituted by it does not have the adequate qualification to become appropriate authority, as the expert by no stretch of imagination, and is not equipped with the required skills and tools for carrying proper analysis and or test of the vehicle to determine the alleged manufacturing defect. Further stated that ARAI is the only body, which has been recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India to be a Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (SIRO). It is, no doubt, true that ARAI is renowned institution for the said purpose but it is not true that ARAI is only competent authority to inspect the vehicle whether it was having any manufacturing defect because, lot of Government recognized institutes are there in India, who have competence to examine the vehicle. Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh is a local institute and one of the best competent as well as renowned institute especially for Mechanical Engineering in India because their professors have best qualifications, as they produce one of the best Mechanical Engineers every year, who are posted in best Companies not only India but in other countries also and even some of them might be working in the appellant Company. Moreover, the Government of India has not debarred the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh to do such type of inspections. So, we have no doubt regarding the qualification and competence of the Punjab Engineering College and its committee, therefore, the plea taken by the appellant stands rejected.

12.           The next question with regard to manufacturing defect is concerned,  earlier Opposite Party No.1 (dealer) filed appeal bearing No.72 of 2020, in which, the plea taken by it that if there is a manufacturing defect, then only the manufacturer i.e. the appellant is liable to refund the sale price of the vehicle instead of Opposite Party No.1.  In the instant case, the vehicle was under warranty period of two years from the date of purchase and defects started occurring within 5-6 months of its purchase. The complainant, not only once, but number of times, visited the service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.1 for removal of the defects but the defects were not removed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant exchanged number of emails/letters with Opposite Party No.1 as well as with Opposite Party No.2, but to no avail. The complainant being a service class person cannot visit again and again to the service center for removal of the defects. It is also the duty of the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1 to provide a defect free vehicle to the complainant because a hefty amount was received by the dealer and if the defects were not removed permanently, it is the duty of the manufacturer i.e. appellant to cure it permanently by sending specialized team at the service center of the dealer but the defects were not cured permanently by the dealer as well as manufacturer. The said question of manufacturing defect had already been dealt with by this Commission at the time of decision of appeals No.68 and 72 of 2020, decided on 09.12.2020, in which, para No.10 reproduced as under :-

“10.           After perusal of the impugned order as well as annexures annexed by the parties, we are of the view that there was multiple defects in the vehicle, as such, the Forum has rightly said that repeated defects had cropped up in the vehicle in a short span of time and the appearance of defects began after 5-6 months from the date of purchase. When one defect was cured, another cropped up, but permanent solution to the said defects was not made by the dealer as well as manufacturer. Even the warranty of the vehicle was two years from the date of purchase but the defects in the vehicle occurred only after 5-6 months of its purchase. Therefore, to prove the said fact, on the request of the complainant and after hearing the Opposite Parties, the vehicle was inspected by Dr.Sushant Samir – Professor, Prof. Ankit Yadav, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engg. Department, PEC, Chandigarh and Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I. (at page No.107 of the record of the Forum). Perusal of the report shows that the complainant as well as Sh.G.S.Thakur, Service Operation Head, Bhagat Ford, Chandigarh were present during inspection and test drive. The vehicle, in question, was inspected and test driven for 43 Kms. The relevant portion of the said report reads thus :-

“During inspection and test drive it has been observed that AC and Heater were working properly and there was no flashing of image on dashboard of the vehicle, in addition, there was no burning smell coming from the vehicle during the test drive. However, there was a major problem of pick up of the vehicle in question. The complainant informed that this problem pertains since purchase of vehicle. The committee is of the opinion that the vehicle in question has a problem of pick up during driving and if this problem is from the purchase of vehicle the same can be attributed to a manufacturing defect.”

Even the plea taken by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 that the report of the expert (Punjab Engineering College) is also vague as it was not based upon any proper inspection of the vehicle, has no value at all because from the aforesaid report, it is clearly proved that proper inspection was carried out by the professors of Punjab Engineering College, Mechanical Engg. Department. Not only this, the impugned order was passed by the Forum after going through the objections filed by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties failed to place on record any expert opinion, which could prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is, however, undoubtedly established that the car suffered from one or the other defects/problems almost from 5-6 months of its purchase. So, it is clearly proved that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect and the Forum has rightly directed to refund the sale price of the vehicle, in question.”

So, we are of the view that the dealer as well as manufacturer are equally responsible for refund of the sale price of the car, as such, the objection taken by the manufacturer– Opposite Party No.2 stands rejected.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld. All pending MAs, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

14.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

13.06.2022                                                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER