BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 128 of 2016.                                                                        

                                                             Date of Institution         :    18.5.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    12.5.2017.

Purshotam Phutela, Advocate son of Shri Babu Ram Phutela, resident of C-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Padam Motors Private Limited, Opp. Traffic Police Chowki, N.H. No.10, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory.

2. Chevrolet General Motors India Private Ltd., having its registered office at Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat State (India).

3. Virender Kaushal, Warranty Area Manager District Sirsa and Bathinda of General Motors, having its registered office at Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat State (India).

4. Vikram Sales/ Works Manager, Padam Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

                                                         ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH.RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT

                  SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………..……MEMBER.

                  SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE… MEMBER

Present:       Sh. P.S. Chauhan,  Advocate for the complainant.

       Sh. Man Minder Singh, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 4.

      Opposite  party No.2 exparte.

     Opposite party no.3 given up.

                   ORDER

                    Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a vehicle i.e. Car Sail-UVA of diesel version bearing engine No.133240291 and key No.M08762, Model 2014 having registration number as HR-24T/8817. The said car has been purchased by the complainant against the cash payment of Rs.5,08,000/-. The vehicle of the complainant is still under warranty period as provided by the op no.2 and this fact is very much in the knowledge of op no.2 as they have online record in their laptop. That a month ago, the left side arm/chimta, self and ripper (front break disc part) of the car were creating the problem upon which the complainant approached the op no.1 but they refused to provide the service though they are liable for the same as the vehicle was/is under the warranty period. They refused to do so on the pretext that the complainant has not got the regular oil service from their dealership, hence they will not provide the warranty for these parts which are non engine parts. That under the compelling circumstances, the complainant delivered the vehicle to op no.1 for the change of these parts and also for the change of front wind glass and right side back view mirror because the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and both these parts broken in the said accident. The op no.1 took the vehicle of the complainant on 23.4.2016 and stated that they will deliver the vehicle to him after necessary works. However, when after two days, the complainant approached the op no.1, they stated that they are not having the parts and they will manage the same within one week and when the complainant demanded back his vehicle with the saying that he will come after one week, the ops no.1 and 4 stated that they cannot give the vehicle to the complainant as the glass of the vehicle has been removed and parts have been opened. That thereafter, the complainant approached the ops even after lapse of one week, but the op no.1 made the complainant to take rounds time and again and they delivered the vehicle of the complainant only on 30.4.2016 and have charged a sum of Rs.7713/- from the complainant. They also passed the comments upon the complainant that these charges are the result of filing of earlier complaint by the complainant. The ops refused to replace the ripper with the false excuse that they have no such part with them and this has been done by them just to cause harassment to the complainant. It is further averred that op no.4 also told to the complainant that further one more year of warranty period is left against the said car and if the complainant will not withdraw the complaint, then he will have to face much more hardship at their hands in future also. The op no.3 who also met the complainant at the showroom of op no.1 also passed such like threatening upon the complainant. It is further averred that it will not be out of place to mention here that prior to this, the complainant approached the ops on account of problem in the AC module and also in the rear shockers and the same have been replaced by the ops considering the vehicle as under warranty period and the warranty period status was same for the time being but the ops caused the unnecessary harassment only to put pressure upon the complainant to withdraw the complaint. This conduct of the ops shows their arbitrary and monopolistic conduct. It is further averred that the ops have also charged about Rs.400/- against the water service which has been done without the consent of the complainant. The complainant has also undergone the pecuniary loss of Rs.5000/- as freight charges from his Home to Court as the private car has been hired by him due to non providing the service on the car in time by the ops. The ops also did not provide the replaced parts to the complainant though the same have been demanded repeatedly by the complainant. That the complainant also undergone much mental tension, unnecessary harassment and humiliation due to the unfair trade practices adopted by the ops and as such he is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- on these counts. The complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs.7713/- as well as amount of Rs.5000/- spent on taxi. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties No.1 and 4 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as there is no deficiency in the service of the answering ops; that complaint is bad for mis joinder of the necessary parties as the op no.4 has been wrongly impleaded as a party. The op no.4 has no personal liability, if any and was employed in the company M/s Padam Motors; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that complainant is estopped from filing such complaint by his own act and conduct and that complainant has not only concealed the true and material facts but has twisted the same. On merits, it has been averred that vehicle after purchase is given warranty by the op company but such warranty is subject to limitations. List of the limitations of the warranty is attached herewith and for the convenience, some of the conditions to which the warranty shall not apply are as under:-

(i)      The foremost requirement for seeking warranty by the customer is there should be free and periodic inspection/ service of the vehicle from the authorized service station of the company. If the same is not done, then the customer is not entitled for any warrant.

(ii)     Failure to use genuine parts, recommended grade of oils, fluids and/or consumables/ grease recommended or approved by CSIPL.

(iii)    To normal wear and tear casual components like bulbs, fuses, air/fuel/pollen/oil filters, spark plugs, clutch disc & plates, break pads and shoes, brake disc and drums.

(iv)    Any services/ inspections being performed as a part of PMS (Periodic Maintenance Schedule). Headlight, aiming, fastener tightening, wheel balancing, wheel alignment, break adjustment/ cleaning, tyre rotation, injector cleaning, belt adjustment etc.

(v)     For maintenance repairs required due to misuse while driving or due to adulteration of oil, fuel or due to bad road conditions.

(vi)    For consumables like oil, grease etc. used during free and paid services as top up or change.

(vii)   For vehicles not used in accordance with the owner’s manual supplied with each vehicles by CSIPL.

                   It has been further averred that in order to get the maximum tyres life, the tyre rotation is very much essential and non rotation of the tyres may also affect breaks, suspension and steering, but the complainant was not getting the Periodic Maintenance Schedule done as per CSIPL from the company. In fact the complainant has refused for service many times and the record is attached herewith. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any warranty from the company. The complainant visited on 12.3.2016 for front side noise in the car and it was informed to the complainant that lower control arm need to be replaced but the complainant refused due to the warranty and no amount was charged on 12.3.2016. Thereafter, the complainant visited the company on 23.4.2016. It has been further averred that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and was repaired by the answering ops. The detail of the same has been mentioned in the system generated job sheet register of the car maintained in the company. The vehicle of the complainant was delivered on 30.4.2016 and the detail of the amount charged from the complainant is also attached herewith. After checking the vehicle and after getting the services from the ops, the complainant signed satisfaction note. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.

3.                None appeared on behalf of op no.2 despite due service and therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte. OP no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant for want of correct address.

4.                In evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to C5. On the other hand, ops no.1 and 4 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copies of document5s Ex.R1 to Ex.R15 and owner’s manual Ex.R16.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                It has come on record that vehicle i.e. car in question of the complainant which was purchased by him on 5.3.2014 met with an accident on 23.4.2016 when the vehicle had covered 43365 Kms. and at that time both lower under arm were replaced. The accident is not covered under the warranty and therefore, the opposite parties charged an amount of Rs.7713/- from the complainant and vehicle was admittedly delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2016. At that time some other broken parts like front wind glass and right side back view mirror were also replaced. Therefore, the opposite parties have justified the charging of above said amount from the complainant. The vehicle in question has been delivered in time to the complainant after necessary repairs as the vehicle met with an accident on 23.4.2016 and after repair same was delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2016, therefore, it cannot be said the ops have delayed the repair of the vehicle in question. It has also come on record that on various occasions the opposite parties suggested necessary service of the vehicle to the complainant but the complainant refused for the same. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties rather from the record available on file it is proved that opposite parties have provided proper after sale services to the complainant. So, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:12.05.2017.                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                Member