Haryana

StateCommission

A/669/2015

TRIUMPH AUTO PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLKAHA

26 May 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.669 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 12.08.2015

Date of Decision: 26.05.2016

 

M/s Tirumph Auto Pvt. Ltd. 20/2, Delhi-Mathura Road, Oppolsite Orient Fan Factory, Mujesar Mor, Faridabad, through its Manager Admin/HR Mr.Ravi Sharma.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.      Mukesh Sharma S/o Sh.Raja Ram, R/o H.No.8300-G, Apna Ghar Enclave,Sohna Road, Faridabad, District Faridabad.

2.      M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd., registered office and works; B-19, Ranjangaon, MIDC, Industrial Area, Ranjangaon, 402222220, Taluka Shirur, District Pune, Maharashtra through its Directors/Principal Officer.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Y.D.Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. R.K.Bamal, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased a car-bearing registration No. HR-29/W-2151 in the year 2009 from opposite party (O.P.) No.2/appellant manufactured by O.P.No.1. O.P.No.2-appellant gave warranty of 2+2 years or 1,50,000 Kms  on account of manufacturing defect. The vehicle started giving trouble at the very initial stage and engineer of O.P.No.2 told that there was no problem in the engine and it was sound of A.C.  As per his assurance he started using car, but, the problem was persisting. He lodged report with O.P.No.2, but, no satisfactory reply was given.  Engineers of O.P.No.2 told that the problem was of internal part of the engine and was not covered under warranty. O.P.No.2 misguided him by concealing the true problem.  On 22.03.2010 he handed over the vehicle to O.P.No.2 for service, but, was damaged by it’s mechanic.  Front bumper and front light were damaged and Nakka (Part of engine) was also damaged by the respondents, but, they never disclosed to him. There was deficiency in service on their part and be directed to exchange the vehicle with new one or to refund back the sale price besides compensation for mental harassment, litigation expenses etc.

2.      Only respondent No.2 filed the reply because O.P.No.1 was proceeded against ex parte.

3.      It was alleged by appellant-opposite party No.2 alleged that car in question was purchased from Techno Auto Private Limited in the year 2009 and was brought to it as and when service became due.  On 12.03.2011 at about 05.30 p.m. telephonic call was received from the complainant that engine was loosing pick up and giving white smoke.  He was advised to get the same checked from nearest authorized dealer i.e. vivek Automobiles.  He was advised not to drive car any more, but, he ignored the same and drove the car, which stopped near Tayal Motors, Faridabad. He brought the car to their workshop on the next date with the help of toeing van.  It was found that under body/beneath body parts were damaged due to some accident and due to that reason inter cooler was leaking(engine Oil). Due to lack of engine oil, the engine was damaged.  Turbo was also damaged due to insertion of dust.  He was told that such like defects could not be rectified free of cost under warranty as the same was due to negligent driving.  Complainant concealed this fact while filing the complaint. When first service was done there was no fault with the engine and noise in A.C. was done at that time.  His every complaint was attended there and then.  There was no deficiency in service on it’s part.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short “District Forum”)  allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 24.04.2015 and directed as under:-

“Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to repair the car in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the opposite party No.2 has preferred this appeal on the ground that there was leakage in the engine due to accident and it was damaged as used without oil. The vehicle was purchased by complainant from Techno Auto Private Limited in the year 2009. The warranty could be of 2+2 years or 1,50,000/- kms which every is earlier. Had there been manufacturing defect in the engine, the car would not have covered such distance. There was no deficiency in service as far as it’s part is concerned, so the impugned order be set aside.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that

at the time of  purchased of vehicle from O.P.No.2 warranty of 2 + 2 Kms or 1,50,000/- Kms was given. Engine started giving trouble  since very beginning and engineer of O.P.No.2 told that there was no problem in the engine, but, it was sound of A.C, which is clear from the job slips Ex.CW-1/6 to EX.CW-25. Enhanced warranty is Ex.CW1/26.

8.      This argument  cannot come to the help of the complainant as far as his case qua appellant-O.P.No.2 is concerned.  It was specifically alleged by appellant that car in question was not purchased from it. This fact is also corroborated by the copy of registration certificate (RC).  Ex.CW1/3 wherein dealers name is mentioned as Techno Auto Private Limited.  It shows that the car was purchased from that dealer and not appellant. so it cannot be presumed that O.P.No.2 gave the warranty of 2 + 2 years or 1,50,000/- Kms. Receipt Ex.CW1/27 pertains to booking of vehicle and not the purchase of vehicle.  In this way O.P.No.1 cannot be held liable to repair the vehicle under warranty. 

9.      More so, warranty is on behalf of manufacture and not the dealer. From the perusal of job slips Ex.CW1/5 it is clear that it was brought  for free service. As per Ex.CW1/6 it was brought to pulling left side, wheel alignment, left door galss not working, reverse gear shifting hard, wiper nozzle adjust-water comes down side, dicky rusty.  It  was checked and needful was done.  Ex.CW1/7 pertains to free check up, Ex.CW1/8 for free check up camp. As per ex.CW1/9 dated 22.03.2010 there was  complaint  about less cooling, wheel alignment etc. is mentioned therein. There was no problem of engine.  Necessary repairs were done and the amount was recovered as mentioned in Ex.CW1/10.  Parts which were under warranty were changed free of cost. Vide Ex.CW1/14 third free service was done. As per EX.CW1/15 there was complaint of missing in engine, clutch wire hose, which were checked.  It has not come on the file that there was any fault on the part of the appellant as far as service is concerned.  It is not proved that it left any fault at the time of the  service. So it cannot be opined that it is liable to be repair the vehicle free of cost. The findings of learned District Forum qua appellant cannot be sustained.  Resultantly impugned order dated 24.04.2015 is set aside as far as it pertains to O.P. No.2-appellant.  As O.P.No.1 has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order, same cannot be set aside against it. Resultantly appeal is allowed qua appellant only.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.3850/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

 

June 26, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.