Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/132/2023

M/S PMG AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH TALWAR SON OF SH. S.D. TALWAR - Opp.Party(s)

GURVINDER SINGH SIDHU

09 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	132 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	15.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	09.04.2024

 

 

M/s PMG Automobiles (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Industrial Plot No.47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh – 160002.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

VERSUS

1]      Rakesh Talwar son of Sh. S. D. Talwar, resident of House No.622, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2]      M/s Mitshubishi Motor through its Managing Director, Office No.21-C, 5^th Cross Street, Guindy Industrial Estate (South Phase), Chennai – 600032, Tamil Nadu.

2^nd Address: M/s Mitshubishi Motor through its Managing Director, Head Office at 3B, 3^rd Floor, Lotus Towers, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025.

3]      Mr. M. Sasikumar Customer Support Services (CSS), Hindustan Motor Finance Corporation Ltd., Office No.21-C, 5^th Cross Street, Guindy Industrial Estate (South Phase), Chennai – 600032, Tamil Nadhu.

…..Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate alongwith Sh. Pranab Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

 

Appeal No.	:	141 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	26.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	09.04.2024

 

Rakesh Talwar son of Sh. S. D. Talwar, resident of H. No.622, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

VERSUS

1]      M/s PMG Automobiles (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Industrial Plot No.47, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

2]      M/s Mitshubishi Motor through its Managing Director, Office No.21-C, 5^th Cross Street, Guindy Industrial Estate (South Phase), Chennai – 600032, Tamil Nadu.

2^nd Address: M/s Mitshubishi Motor through its Managing Director, Head Office at 3B, 3^rd Floor, Lotus Towers, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110025.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate alongwith Sh. Pranab Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Gurvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Complaint against respondent No.2 already dismissed.

 

PER RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                Vide this order we are disposing of aforesaid captioned appeals bearing Nos.132 of 2023 filed by opposite party No.1 – M/s PMG Automobile (P) Ltd. and 141 of 2023 filed by the complainant – Sh. Rakesh Talwar against order dated 11.04.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’) vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.165 of 2019 has been partly allowed. The District Commission directed the complainant to pay the remaining cost of repair of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.96,000/- to opposite party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It also directed opposite party No.1 to hand over the repaired vehicle to the complainant after receipt of the payment and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with by opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of balance amount from the complainant, failing which, opposite party No.1 was directed to make payment of the compensation awarded with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the order till realization apart from compliance of the remaining part of the order.

2]                The facts, as narrated in the impugned order passed by the District Commission are as under:-

“1.     Briefly stated the complainant who is owner of Mitsubishi Outlander car on 27.07.2018 approached the OP No.1 for engine heat up issue and the service team of OP No.1 inspected the car of the complainant and told the complainant that the same is in perfect condition and does not require any repair. On 20.8.2018 the complainant again approached the OP No.1 with the same problem. After inspection the OP No.1 suggested replacement of Head Gasket of the engine  but after opening the Head Gasket the OP No.1 realized that the same is fine and did not need any replacement. It is alleged that in the process of fitting the Head gasket the mechanics of OP No.1 damaged the engine parts of the car due to which the car started giving missing problems and the car of the complainant was no longer in a proper running condition. The service engineers of OP No.1 asked the complainant to get the engine oil pump and engine crank bearings changed  and demanded Rs.40,000/- for the same.  The complainant accordingly paid the said amount. It is alleged that the OP No.1 after delay of 10 weeks changed the aforesaid parts but the problem of car still not resolved and the condition of the car further deteriorated with major missing problems. It is alleged that the OPs failed to rectify the defect of the car in question despite change of parts  and ultimately the complainant sent legal notice dated 23.1.2019 to the OPs but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.      The Opposite  Party No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that when the vehicle i.e. Outlander reported in workshop on 27.1.2018 with overheating concern and water mixed with engine oil and other multiple problems and it was not in drivable condition as the oil had water mixed in it and it was found that the head gasket was required to be replaced and the same was suggested to the complainant but he stated that he will arrange the head gasket but the gasket provided by the complainant to the workshop did not match with the original gasket. Thereafter on approval given by the complainant to arrange the original part from company HMFCL order for head gasket was placed on 3.8.2018 with HMFCL which was received from HMFCL on 16.8.2018. It is admitted that the OP No.1 suggested for  replacement of oil pump crank. After fitting of the required parts it was observed that RPM was not stable and for further diagnosis the mechanics manager of OP No.1 installed diagnostic tool MUT-III and found DTC P-1241 and in order to reinsure the defect throttle body from other car was fitted and checked and test drive was carried on alongwith complainant driver and it was found out that problem of RMP was resolved.  Thus the complainant was informed that in order to remove the problem in the vehicle  throttle body is required to be replaced and the estimated cost of part was Rs.68,500/- approximately and Rs.1500/- was to be charged as replacement charges/labour charges.  But the complainant was not ready to bear the cost of new throttle body and wanted to have the part at a lesser cost/use one. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3.      OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 11.12.2019 it was proceeded against exparte.”

3]                Opposite Party No.1, in its appeal bearing No.132 of 2023, has stated that after hearing part arguments, the District Commission vide order dated 02.08.2021 directed it to repair the vehicle in question within one month and submit the report and the case was adjourned for further arguments. It has further been stated that on 06.09.2021, opposite party No.1 moved an application for directing the complainant to give approval for replacement of the throttle bottle costing Rs.1,36,000/- approximately and to deposit the said amount for replacement of throttle bottle. It has further been stated that on 06.09.2021, the District Commission directed opposite party No.1 to repair the vehicle and stated that issue regarding cost of the part would be considered after repair of the vehicle and the case was adjourned to 01.12.2021 for arguments. It has further been stated that the District Commission in its order dated 14.01.2022 again reiterated that the payment of the part shall be decided at the time of arguments and opposite party No.1 was asked to submit report on 02.03.2022, which was submitted on 25.05.2022. It has further been stated that prior to the replacement of the throttle bottle, an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was pending towards the complainant for repair of the vehicle whereby head gasket and oil sump were replaced. It has further been stated that out of the said outstanding amount of Rs.1,04,000/-, the complainant paid just Rs.40,000/- and still an amount of Rs.64,000/- was outstanding against him, which fact the District Commission has totally failed to take into consideration while passing the impugned order. It has further been stated that the District Commission had only considered the amount that was made out for replacement of the throttle bottle i.e. Rs.1,36,000/- whereby it ought to have directed the complainant to also pay the total outstanding amount. 

4]                On the other hand, in his appeal bearing No.141 of 2023, the complainant has stated that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents purposely avoided rectifying the defects in his car, for which, they had taken the entire consideration. It has further been stated that the District Commission also failed to appreciate that the complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- in furtherance of the demand made by opposite party No.1 and further had to avail taxis for everyday use which costs him to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. It has further been stated that the District Commission overlooked the fact that the complainant had to suffer a lot at the hands of opposite party No.1 and awarded only a minimal compensation and litigation expenses, which need to be enhanced.  

5]                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order, record of the case and the written arguments of the parties.  

6]                Bare perusal of the report dated 25.05.2022 at Page  of the District Commission’s record submitted by Sh. Mohit Pratap Singh, Managing Director, PMG Automobiles – opposite party No.1 makes it abundantly clear that in compliance to order dated 14.01.2022 of the District Commission, the vehicle of the complainant was repaired after replacing the throttle bottle worth Rs.1,36,000/-. On -09.02.2022, the complainant alongwith his son visited the workshop of opposite party No.1 and took the test drive and was satisfied. However, he raised other minor issues. The District Commission was apprised of the situation and a request was made to conduct the inspection of the vehicle in the presence of some independent persons. Accordingly, on the directions of the District Commission, the complainant alongwith his counsel visited the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 26.04.2022 and raised certain other issues regarding door side rubbers, window rubbers and fading of paint at one spot on the vehicle. The representative of opposite party No.1 as a good will gesture agreed to replace the rubber parts subject to the availability thereof in the market and also agreed to carry out the rubbing of the spot of fading of paint. In the report, it has also been submitted that since the vehicle of the complainant is an old model and the rubber parts are not easily available, therefore, efforts are being made to arrange the rubber parts. From this report, it is clearly established that the complainant was fully satisfied after taking a test drive in so far as the running of the vehicle is concerned. However, the issues with regard to door side rubbers, window rubbers and fading of paint at one spot on the vehicle are very minor and these issues do occur as the vehicle of the complainant is very old one. It may be stated here that since these minor issues have been pointed out subsequently by the complainant and were not the subject matter of the complaint, therefore, opposite party No.1 cannot be made liable to for rectification of these issues. Still, we appreciate that as a goodwill gesture, opposite party No.1 agreed to resolve these issues.

7]                The main argument of the learned Counsel for opposite party No.1 is that that prior to the replacement of the throttle bottle worth Rs.1,36,000/-, already an amount of Rs.1,04,000/- was pending towards the complainant for repair of the vehicle whereby head gasket and other parts like bearings, module, balancer etc. were replaced and he paid just Rs.40,000/-, which fact the District Commission has totally failed to take into consideration while passing the impugned order. This pleading also finds mention in Paras 4 & 5 of the written statement filed by opposite party No.1 before the District Commission wherein it has been stated that in doing all the repairs, an amount of Rs.1,04,047/- was made out against the complainant but only Rs.40,000/- has been received by opposite party No.1 and there is outstanding amount of Rs.64,000/- against the complainant. In support of this pleading, there is on record a Job Card/Invoice dated 20.08.2018 placed by opposite party No.1 as Annexure R-2, which clearly proves that the vehicle of the complainant was repaired by replacing head gasket, bearing, crank shafts, bearings, connrod, module, balancer SFT⁺ etc.  and a bill of Rs.1,04,047/- was raised by opposite party No.1, which the complainant was to pay. Admittedly, the complainant has only paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to opposite party No.1. The District Commission, while passing the impugned order has directed the complainant to pay to opposite party No.1 an amount of Rs.96,000/- i.e. (Rs.1,36,000/- cost of throttle body minus Rs.40,000 already paid by the complainant). Therefore, the District Commission has failed to take into consideration the previous outstanding billed amount of Rs.1,04,047/-, which the complainant is liable to pay. In our concerted view, it (District Commission) ought to have directed the complainant to pay the previous outstanding billed amount of Rs.1,04,047/- alongwith Rs.96,000/- i.e. (totaling Rs.2,00,047/-) while passing the impugned order.

8]                Now coming to the claim of the complainant for enhancement in the compensation and litigation cost awarded by the District Commission, we are of the view that the compensation on account of mental agony and harassment awarded in this case to the tune of Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side, which needs to be adequately enhanced. In our view, the same, if enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, shall meet the ends of justice.  However, the litigation cost seems to be just and adequate. To the extent indicated above, the impugned order needs to be modified.

9]                In view of above, both the appeals bearing Nos.132 of 2023 filed by opposite party No.1 – M/s PMG Automobile (P) Ltd. and 141 of 2023 filed by the complainant – Sh. Rakesh Talwar are partly accepted. The impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed by District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh is modified in the following manner:-

i)        The complainant is directed to pay the previous outstanding billed amount of Rs.1,04,047/- alongwith Rs.96,000/- i.e. (totaling Rs.2,00,047/-) towards the repair of the vehicle in question to opposite party No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and opposite party No.1 shall hand over the repaired vehicle to the complainant after receipt of the payment.

ii)       Opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;

iii)      Opposite party No.1 shall also pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

10]              This order be complied with by opposite party No.1 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the balance amount of Rs.2,00,047/- from the complainant failing which, opposite party No.1 shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(ii) above, with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. no.1(i) & (iii) above.

11]              A copy of this order be placed in connected appeal bearing No.141 of 2023 – Rakesh Talwar Vs. M/s PMG Automobile (P) Ltd. & anr.

12]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

09.04.2024

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad