Punjab

Sangrur

CC/357/2016

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Padam Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  357

                                                Instituted on:    25.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       08.11.2016

 

Jagjit Singh son of Bhinder Singh, R/O Village Fatehgarh Chhanna, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Padam Motors, Located at Opposite Kamal Palace, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Located at Main Rajpura-Patiala Road, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Patiala through its Manager.

3.             General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at Chandpura Industrial Estate, Hlol-389 351, District Panchmahal, Gujarat India.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OP NO.3             :               Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Chevrolet Beat car  bearing chassis number M6BFBGNCCT030035 AND ENGINE NUMBER 10AB52121860057 from Op number 1       on 05.11.2012 for Rs.6,65,929/- and the vehicle was delivered at Sangrur.  It is further averred that at the time of its purchase, the Ops assured the complainant that the same is free from any problem and the vehicle has a warranty of three years or 1 Lac Kilometer whichever is earlier.  Further case of the complainant is that when the vehicle crossed 57,000 KMs running, then it started to give the problems of low pick up and consumption of excess mobile oil, as such the complainant approached the OP.  It is further averred that the complainant got checked the vehicle from OP number 1 on 6.3.2014 and OP number 1 assured that they will repair the vehicle on the regular services. The complainant got serviced the vehicle on 26.3.2014 at that time the meter reading was 60,000 KM.  After changing the engine oil of the vehicle, the OP number 1 assured that now the engine is without any defect and there will be no problem in the future. It is further averred that on 7.5.2014, the complainant again approached the OP and apprised about the poor pickup and low mileage and at that time reading was 64,162 KM.  It is further averred that the complainant again got checked the vehicle on 21.6.2014 regarding the same problem at the reading of 68,975 KM, but nothing was done.  The OP number 1 advised the complainant that the problem can be rectified only with the complete repair of the engine of the vehicle which was overhauled on 26.6.2014, when meter of the vehicle crossed only 69,041 KM and charged Rs.7233/- from the complainant. It is further stated that the problem of consuming excess oil by the engine was still being faced by the complainant and as such, he again approached the Ops number 1 and 2 , who checked the vehicle on 2.4.2015 at the reading of 97,586 KM and the OP number 1 referred the vehicle to OP number 2 for repairs and further the OP number 2 charged an amount of Rs.6998/- at that time the vehicle crossed only 99,709 KM distance.  Further case of the complainant is that the engine of the vehicle of the complainant was overhauled by OP number 1 and 2 twice within 1,00,000 KM and within three years of its purchase.  Further case of the complainant is that despite visiting the complainant to the Ops, the vehicle was not set right by the Ops despite approaching them so many times.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to change the vehicle with a new one or in the alternative to change the engine of the vehicle with a new one or to refund the value of the car and to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Forum, that the complainant is false and vexatious and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question from the OPs. Further it is admitted that there was warranty of three years or one lac kilometre subject to the conditions as mentioned in the warranty book. It is denied that there was any problem in the car in question and consumption of the excess oil is also denied. It is stated that the complainant has been using the car in question for his business as he deals in selling veterinary medicine and also provide medical services to its customers across various cities.  The complainant used to handle the car in question in very rough manner and did not keep the same proper and carefully. It is stated that the complainant run the car about 1461 KM in just 11 days. It is stated further that the mileage of the vehicle depends on the manners of driving.  However, there was no problem in pickup of the car in question.  It is further stated that the reading of 69000 KM on 26.6.2014, the OP for the sake of its goodwill and to satisfy the complainant, did some engine work under warranty and charged only for that parts which did not come under warranty. However, any manufacturing defect in the car has been denied. It is further stated that on 25.4.2015, the OP by showing good gesture, did again some work just to satisfy him by considering him his valuable customer and the OP did said work under warranty and charged only for the  parts which were not under warranty. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 3 did not file any written reply.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of bills, Ex.C-4 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-12 copies of invoice, Ex.C-13 copy of summary/history sheet, Ex.C-14 copy of extended warranty, Ex.C-15 copy of specification, Ex.C-16 copy of warranty cover, Ex.C-17 affidavit of Gurjant Singh, Ex.C-18 copy of expert report dated 25.7.2016 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of letter, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of satisfaction voucher, Ex.OP1&2/4 authority letter, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of record of repairs/service and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit along with annexure OP3/1, Ex.OP3/2 copy of book let and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

6.             First of all, the Ops number 1 and 2 have taken the objection that the complainant has been using the car in question for commercial purpose, but the OPs number 1 and 2 failed to prove on record that the car is being used for commercial purpose, as the Ops number 1 and 2 have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record, as such, this allegation of the Ops number 1 and 2 falls flat, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint of the complainant is very much maintainable before this Forum.

 

7.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the delivery challan issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the car in question,  which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the car in question and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 3.  It is further an admitted fact between the parties that the car in question was having a warranty/guarantee of three years or 1,00,000 KMs from the very date of its purchase.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though the engine of the car in question started to give pick up problem of the vehicle and further started to consume more engine oil than the required one, as such, the complainant approached the OP on 21.06.2014 and the OP  at the reading of 69000 KMs did engine work, as is evident from the copy of the history sheet on record as Ex.C-13, wherein it is stated as details of malfunction “service, CHK LOW PIK, GENERAK CHK UP”, meaning thereby the Op checked the low pick up of the vehicle in question.  In the same document Ex.C-13, the same is the position on 7.5.2014, whereby it is stated that in the column labour details as ‘fuel filter assembly replacement, liftgate strut, replacement etc.”  Further we have very carefully perused the whole history of the vehicle, which clearly reveals that the complainant brought the vehicle in question to the Op so many times to get checked the engine oil level and at various occasion it was found quite less than the required one and there was also pick up problem of the vehicle.   Further support can be taken from the copies of the bills Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-12, which shows that the complainant visited the Op so many times  and on various occasion so many parts of the car in question were replaced.  The complainant also got extended the warranty of the car in question by further upto 1,40,000 KMs by paying the requisite charges, as is evident from the copy of extended warranty registration form, which is on record Ex.C-14.   Further the complainant has also produced on record the expert opinion, Ex.C-18 and his affidavit Ex.C-17 given by one Gurjant Singh, wherein he has mention that there is defect in the engine of the car, which is beyond repairs. But, to deny this fact the Op has nothing produced on file.   The Ops number 1 and 2 has also produced the history of the vehicle Ex.C-5, wherein the same details are mentioned as produced by the complainant.  In the circumstances, the fact remains that the vehicle in question was brought to the OPs frequently for the problems of consumption of mobile oil and pick up problem of the vehicle, but the Ops failed to set right the same, which we feel it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, more so when the warranty of the vehicle was upto 1,00,000 Kms or three years which ever is earlier, though thereafter the complainant took extended warranty from the OPs by paying the requisite charges.

 

8.             Since it is an admitted case that the complainant approached the for getting the car in question repaired as is evident from the copies of various job orders sheets/history sheet, produced on record, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs be directed to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle along with interest.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Palam Tractors versus Shri Jamir Ahmmed 2010(2) CPC 676 (HP State Commission), wherein it has been held that despite replacement of engine of the three wheeler, the defect could not be removed, as such, it was ordered for replacement of the engine of the vehicle and further awarded compensation for harassment.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has also cited M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. versus M/s. Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. and another 2008(1) CPJ 19 (NC), wherein it has been held that there is no necessity for a new car to go to workshop on several occasions for repairs within a short span of one year of its purchase. The vehicle which emit smoke beyond the specified levels, are not allowed to ply on the roads. It was the duty of the petitioner/company to replace the car as they were not in a position to rectify the defect. As such, we feel that the above said case law is fully applicable in the facts of the present case, as such, present complaint deserves to be allowed as it is a clear cut case of deficient in service on the part of the OPs, as the OP number 1 has miserably failed to set right the engine of the vehicle in question despite its repairs on two occasions i.e. on 26.06.2014 and 25.04.2015.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Chandan Mondal and others 2013(4) CPJ 486, wherein the complainant visited a number of times to get the tractor repaired during the warranty period and the job cards produced ample evidence to prove that the vehicle in question did have defects and complainant was put to hardship on account of that. It is futile to go into minute/extreme technicalities in order to establish whether the defects pointed out qualifies to be classified as manufacturing defect or not.  It is a hard fact that the consumer, who is a farmer, was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said defective vehicle. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission there was no fault committed by State Commission and the impugned order of the State Commission was upheld.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Malabar Motors versus K.V.Jayarajan and another 2013(4) CPJ 329 (NC), wherein it has been upheld the order of the State Commission returning the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation as the vehicle in question was sent for repairs for number of times to the petitioner as number of defects were there. 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to replace the engine of the car in question with a new one without charging anything from the complainant. It is made clear that the OPs shall also issue the bill/other required documents of the replaced engine to the complainant, so that the necessary entry could be made in the registration certificate from the competent authority. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

10.                   This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 8, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member