Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/315/2016

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

Versus

Prakriti Sharma d/o Ratnesh Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Phatak

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 291 /2016

 

K.S.Cars Pvt.Ltd., New Sanganer Road, Sodala,Jaipur through Director Arun Singh.

Vs.

 

Sushri Prakriti Sharma d/o Ratnesh Sharma r/o 634, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 315 /2016

 

M/s.Ford India Pvt.Ltd., Corporate office, S.P.Koil Post, Chengelpettu 603204 Tamil Nadu through authorised signatory

 

Vs.

 

Sushri Prakriti Sharma d/o Ratnesh Sharma r/o 634, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.8.2016

 

2

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member

 

Mr.Purshotam Vyas counsel for K.S.Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Mr.Ratnesh Sharma counsel for the complainant

Ms.Jaya Pathak counnsel for M/s.Ford India Pvt.Ltd.

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.2.2016 passed by the learned DCF Jaipur 3^rd by which the opposite parties were directed to repair the car to the satisfaction of the complainant and pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss sustained by the complainant.

 

The complainant had purchased a Ford Figo ZXI car on 12.3.2012. After 22 days on 4.4.2012 the car broke down with a major problem in the engine and vehicle had to be carried out in a truck by the opposite parties to their workshop and engine problem was removed. Again on 7.7.2012 it developed

3

 

problem with regard to mileage and pick up. Again on 29.7.2012 EGR valves had to be replaced and after two months it developed problems with regard to fuel meter, break, pick up and noise etc. and on 17.8.2012 fuel injector was replaced. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that after 22 days of the purchase of vehicle it had developed major engine problem. Then EGR valve and injecters were to be replaced . There were problem with pick up and mileage. He had frequently take his vehicle to the workshop which was detained there for days. Thus, she suffered inconvenience and agony in the absence of her vehicle. She prayed for replacement of the vehicle before the learned DCF.

 

The opposite parties filed their reply before the DCF and submitted that no manufacturing defect was proved in the vehicle. These were the common problems and were taken care free of cost during warranty period. After submissions of the parties the learned DCF however, rejected the prayer for replacement of the vehicle as on the date of judgment the vehicle was four years old and was still being used by the complainant. He partially allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties as above.

 

4

Two separate appeals have been filed against this order i.e. by the manufacturer and the dealer. The complainant had also filed his appearance. The appeals are being finally disposed of at this stage with the consent of the parties.

 

The counsel for the manufacturer and the counsel for the dealer submitted that there is no proof of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and new age vehicles are wholly computerized and fitted with sensors, in case of any break down the vehicle had to be brought to the workshop and it cannot be attended on spot. He submitted that the vehicle was brought to the workshop through a truck is of no consequence as the vehicle could not have been attended on the spot. He further submitted that minor defects which arise out of running the vehicle were properly attended and there was no justification for awarding any compensation in favour of the complainant.

 

The learned counsel for the manufacturer and the counsel for the dealer have placed reliance on I (2015) CPJ 607 ( NC ) Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goyal & ors. In this judgment it was held that merely because vehicle has been taken for repairs number of times, it cannot be inferred that vehicle was having manufacturing defect. In II (2015) CPJ 715

5

 

(NC) Jivrajbhai Bhikhabhai Kakadia Vs. Mega Automobile Pvt.Ltd. It was held that proper services during warranty period were given and there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect. Hence, the complaint was dismissed. The learned counsel has also relied on II (2008) C PJ 111 (NC) Tata Eng.and Locomotive Co.Ltd. Vs. Sunil Bhasin & ors., I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & ors. , I (2013) CPJ 47 (NC) Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Classic Automobiles. The learned counsel on the basis of these judgments vehemently argued that manufacturing defect was not proved and moreover manufacturing defect cannot be proved in absence of any expert opinion. In the present case the complainant failed to produce any expert opinion establishing any manufacturing defect in the car. The judgment in First Appeal No. 723/2006 (NC) General Motors India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. G.S. Fertilkzers Pvt.Ltd. is also cited on this point.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that company's record shows that vehicle had developed major engine problem after 22 days of purchase of the car and vehicle had to be transported in a truck with engine break down. He further submits that there can be no other evidence of manufacturing defect if any vehicle's engine breaks down after

6

 

22 days. He has lso produced the job card history of the car from 4.4.2012 to 1.6.2013 during which the vehicle had to be sent to workshop about 15 times. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment passed in Revision Petition no. 1445/2008 M/s Mandovi Motors Vs. Pravenchandra Shetty in which it was held that “ sequence of events narrated above leads to the irresistible conclusion that the vehicle suffered from many defects for which it had to be taken for repairs again and again.”

 

The learned counsel also cited I (2008) CPJ 19 (NC) Hyundai Motors Vs. Affiliated East West Press in which it was held that manufacturers have developed practice/ tendency of not admitting the defects in the vehicle and not replacing the same without contest. In this case the vehicle was ordered to be replaced.

 

In IV ( 2003) CPJ 25 (NC) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Consumer Education and Research it was held that after examining the defence and evidence adduced by the respondent, removal of any parts thereof was not enough and same required to be replaced by a new car.

 

7

 

In R.P. No. 2790/2008 Hind Motor India Ltd. Vs. Lakhbir Singh it was held that the vehicle started developing technical snags. The vehicle was taken to workshop of the petitioners 15 days after it was purchased. In this case also the car was ordered to be replaced. In R.P. No. 4146/2012 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Sri Chandan Mondal it was held that copies of job cards placed on record were ample evidence to prove that vehicle did have defect and complainant was put to lot of hardship on account of that. It was held in this case that when the vehicle is found defective , the dealer and manufacturer were jointly and severely liable to refund the cost of defective vehicle with interest.

 

We have heard the arguments of respective counsels and have perused the judgments cited before us.

 

The learned DCF has rejected the prayer for replacement of the vehicle and has only directed that vehicle be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. We do not think this was a direction against which the appellants should have come in appeal. On facts it cannot be disputed that vehicle broke down with a major engine problem and had to transported in a truck

 

8

 

to the workshop after 22 days. Any common man can understand the consequence of engine break down in 22 days of purchase of a vehicle and opposite parties have not disclosed what was the problem with the engine. It is also on record that vehicle was taken to workshop 15 times within one year with the complaints of poor pick up, less mileage, fuel injector not working, injectors not working. These facts which have been produced by the complainant on the basis of job cards and vehicle repair history still goes on to show that within 2-3 months of purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle reported of engine mal function, EGR not working had to be replaced, three injectors have to be replaced and with other incidental repairs carried on. Though all these repairs were carried on during warranty free of cost by the opposite parties.

 

The argument of manufacturing defects which have been vehemently argued by the appellants has no relevance in view of the order passed by the learned DCF wherein it has rejected the prayer for replacement of the vehicle.

 

The question of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant for hardship, inconvenience and mental agony was

 

9

 

considered by us on the basis of arguments put forward before us and we feel that any buyer who has to take his brand new vehicle of a reputed manufacturer 15 times within span of one year with serious problem like engine mal function is entitled to have some rescue by way of compensation by the opposite parties. It cannot be denied that complainant was put to hardship and inconvenience and had to remain without vehicle and it naturally had its consequence. We find no illegality or perversity warranting any interference in the order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeals does not deserve to be admitted and are finally dismissed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm