Haryana

Karnal

126/13

Sh. Rinku Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S. Rana

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.126 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.:06.03.2013

                                                              Date of decision:14.12.2016

 

Rinku Mittal son of Shri Hari Ram Mittal, resident of House no.168, Sector-12, Phase-II, HUDA, Panipat.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. P.P.Automotive Pvt. Ltd. NH 119/4, opposite Hotel New World, G.T. Road, Karnal having its head office at 1^st floor, Nirmal Motors, Meerut Road, Karnal-132001 through its Director/M.D./Incharge.

2. Mahindra Automobiles Distributor Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollow Bunder, Mumbai-400039 through its Director/M.D./Incharge.

 

                                                                             ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.V.K.Gupta Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. G.P.Singh Advocate for the Opposite party no.1

                    Sh. Pardeep Gill Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Verito Dissel D4 car having chasis no.DZE-16234 and Engine no.D151795, on 5.6.2011, for Rs.6,07,000/- from opposite party no.1 and invoice no.2926 dated 5.6.2011 was issued by opposite party no.1 regarding the said sale. The car was got financed by him. Lateron, the same was got registered with Registering Authority and Registration number of the same is HR-06Q -0091. The car carried the warranty for of two years. On 17.06.2011 the opposite parties issued certificate of extended warranty for the 3^rd and 4^th years upto one lakh kilometers. Alongwith this certificate a detail of the parts covered under the warranty was also given. On 19.12.2012, while he was going from Panipat to village Kurar, the car suddenly stopped near village Chhajpur. He called customer care number of opposite party at 18002096006, but there was no response. He also dialed the mobile number of Mr. Aman Kant Head of Panipat office, but he also did not respond. The mileage of the car on that day was below 50,000kilometers. On the request of opposite party no.1, he shifted his car to the workshop of opposite party no.1 and the same was showing a mileage of 50039 kilometers. The opposite party received the car on 19.12.2012 and gave the same after repairs on 25.12.2012. An amount of Rs.29416/- as value of the parts and Rs.7584/- of labour were charged from him. He lodged protest on the ground that vehicle was under warranty, but the opposite party no.1 did not listen anything and forced him to deposit whole of the amount. On 26.12.2012, the car started creating problem, therefore, the same was taken to opposite party no1. The car was repaired on 27.12.2012 and Rs.785/- were got deposited from him as the value of the spare parts. In the month of February, 2013 the car suddenly started stopping on the road. He tried to contact Panipat office of opposite party no.1, but to no effect. Therefore, the car was taken to the workshop of opposite party no.1 and at that time it had covered 52827 kilometers. The opposite party no.1 changed some parts and charged an amount of Rs.11921/- as value of the parts and Rs.10112/- for labour charges.  The parts mentioned in the invoice were covered under the warranty. The car started showing the same problem, therefore, the same was taken to the workshop of opposite party no.1. He was asked to get changed the injector worth Rs.20,000/- to which he refused to pay as the fuel injectors were covered under the warranty. Again on 21.02.2013 the opposite party no.1 charged an amount of Rs.708/- for labour. Thus, the opposite party  no.1 has charged total amount of Rs.61,526/- for spare parts and labour charges from him, whereas he was not liable to pay the same, as the car was under warranty for four years. In this way, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused him mental pain and agony besides financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the extended warranty did not cover all the components, which were subject to normal wear and tear. The complainant brought his vehicle for repair to the workshop on 19.12.2012 and at that time the vehicle had already covered the mileage of 50039 Kilometers. The fuel supply to the engine was restricted due to clogged fuel filter. The complainant had also requested for repair of suspension system of the vehicle, which was done as per his own wishes and order. He was charged for the parts, which were not covered under the warranty. The complainant again brought his vehicle with the problem of coolant leakage from the engine and it was found that the cap of the coolant bottle was tampered and coolant was leaking out of the same. The cap was replaced with a new one and repair was done on 26.12.2012 on the coverage of 50050 kilometers. The complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop on 7.2.2013 at the coverage of 52827 kilometers with the problem of engine overheating. On technical checkup it was found that the radiator which cools the coolant and engine, was externally damaged after being hit by a foreign object and coolant leaked from the radiator and other cooling system of the engine, resulting in over heating of the engine by burning the head gasket of the engine. All the parts and components affected by overheating were shown to the complainant. The complainant was advised to consult the related insurance company for claim against repairs and spares as the radiator was damaged, because of external impact, but he did not pay any heed to the such advice. Warranty of the product was provided by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.2 for certain limit of time or overage of certain kilometers, against manufacturing defect. The warranty did not cover any part or component which was damaged due to operational fault of the customer. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is time barred; that the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party no.2; that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party no.2; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed with malafide intention to get undue monetary benefits from the opposite parties.

                   On merits it has been pleaded that the extended warranty purchased by the complainant was effective on completion of 50000 kilometers by the vehicle and the same had its own limitation. Extended warranty did not cover all the components. The complainant was charged for the parts, which were not covered under the warranty.

                   The opposite party no.3 has taken the same stand as taken by opposite party no.1 in its written statement regarding repair of the vehicle of the complainant on various dates and charging for the same from the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C9 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, the affidavit of Amrit Lal Director of opposite party no.1 Ex.O1, affidavit of Mahender Partap Singh Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.O2 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                Admittedly, the car purchased by the complainant carried warranty for two years and he had purchased extended warranty for 3^rd and 4^th years also on 17.06.2011. There is no dispute regarding the repairs carried out by opposite party no.1 and charging the amounts from the complainant for such repairs on various dates. As per the case of the complainant the car was repaired during warranty period, therefore, the opposite party no.1 was not entitled to recover any amount from him regarding the spare parts replaced for repairs of the car during warranty period. On the other hand, the opposite parties have asserted that the extended warranty carried some limitations and the spare parts which were replaced were not covered under the warranty. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether parts replaced by opposite party no.1 for carrying out repairs of the car of the complainant were covered under the warranty.

8.                The copy of the Shield Bulletin regarding the parts covered under the extended warranty has been produced by the complainant as Ex.C3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon the said Shield Bulletin. During the course of arguments, the spare parts mentioned in the bills, the copies of which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C9 were compared with the parts covered under the extended warranty and the components not covered as mentioned in Ex.C3. On comparison it was found that only “cylinder head gasket” as mentioned in Ex.C7 was covered under the warranty, for which the opposite party no.1 had illegally charged from the complainant and the other parts mentioned in the bills were not covered under the warranty. Thus, it is emphatically clear that the complainant was not liable to be charged for “cylinder head gasket” which was covered under the warranty but the opposite party no.1 charged for the same also from the complainant illegally or unauthorizedly, which certainly amounted to deficiency in service on its part. It is not the case of the complainant that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He has only claimed refund of the amount of Rs.61,526/- charged from him by opposite party no.1 for repairs of his vehicle. Thus, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.2. Consequently, the opposite party no.1 is only liable to refund the amount of Rs.1440/- alongwith the Vat amount charged at the rate of 12½% from the complainant illegally for “cylinder head gasket”. The amount comes to Rs.1620/-

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1620/- to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member