Haryana

StateCommission

A/518/2015

JAGMOHAN MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.ANTIL

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No. 518 of 2015

Date of Institution:11.06.2015       Date of Decision: 27.04.2016

Jagmohan Motors Ltd. (Maruti Dealer), Delhi road,Sonepat through its director/Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Kanwal Singh, r/o Village Sothi,Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. through its Prop. Palam Gurgaon road, Gurgaon.

…..Respondents

Present:-    Mr.Ashwani Antil, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Ashish Pannu, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Salil Sabhlok, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.2.

Appeal No.574 of 2015

Date of institution:- 08.07.2015

Date of Decision:- 27.04.2016

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela road,Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kanwal Singh r/o village Sohti Tehsil Kharkhoda Distt.Sonepat.

2.      Jagmohan Motors Ltd. Branch Office, Delhi road,Sonepat through its Director.

 

Present:-    Mr.Salil Sabhlok, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Ashish Pannu, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Mr.Ashwani Antil, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2.

CORAM:             Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial  Member

                              Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

                                                 ORDER

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Vide this order, above mentioned two appeals bearing No.518 of 2015 and 574 of 2015 will be disposed off as they are preferred against the same order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (in short ‘District Forum’).

2.      It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased new car on 02.07.2013 from Opposite party (O.P) no.1 manufactured by O.P.No.2 alongwith the four years warranty.  After covering 2-3 Kms of distance car automatically stopped and salesman Balraj, of O.P.No.1, rectified the problem.  On next day he visited the workshop of O.P.No.1 and mechanic opened tank of the car and removed the fault.  After three months Turbo of the car burnt automatically and he brought the vehicle to the workshop of O.P.No.1. They changed turbo, but, did not give any receipt. They charged Rs.8225/- from him under the pretext of labour charges and alleged that due to that reason they were not issuing receipt. After coverage of 16000 Kms he took vehicle to the workshop of O.P.No.1 and they charged Rs.6600/- from him and refused to issue any receipt.  After 20,000/- Kms when he took vehicle to the workshop they illegally charged Rs.900/- from him.  There was problem in the engine and he requested to replace the same, but, to no use.  As the vehicle was within warranty they were supposed to change engine.  They were also liable to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental agony etc. Rs.20,000/- which were illegally charged and Rs.11,000/- as of litigation expenses.

3.      Both the O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting his averments.  It was alleged by the O.P.No.1 that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  As and when any problem occurred in the vehicle, the same was removed free of charge.  The vehicle was repaired on separate dates as Tabulated below:-   

“i.       On 3/7/13, the complainant bought the vehicle   with a specific warranty as mentioned in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet for a period of 24 months or 40000 Kms whichever even occur first.

ii.       On 05/7/13 after running 426 Kms. Within 2 days,   the complainant first time brought the vehicle to the workshop of respondent no.2 for general check up for demanded repair “warning light Glowing/Blowing and vehicle stop some time, check”.  The respondent no.2 herein checked the complete vehicle found no abnormality and delivered back the vehicle to the complainant.

iii.      On 15/7/13 after running 1113 Kms, the   complainant brought the vehicle in question for 1^st free routine maintenance service, which was due on completion of 1000 Kms as recommended under the maintenance schedule. The complainant simply sought 1^st free service, General Check up and all doors and dickey adjustment. The complainant neither pointed out any specific defect in the vehicle nor any repeated job as pointed out on last visit.

iv.      On 25/8/13 after running 4561 Kms, the   complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of respondent no.2 herein for obtaining 2^nd free routine maintenance service as recommended.  The neither sought any repeat job nor pointed out any specific defect in the vehicle in question. He sought the General Check up only.

v.       On 01/10/2013 after running of 7935 Kms. The   complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of respondent no.2 for accidental “Body Repairs” on paid basis out of warranty.  The front Bumper was replaced and denting painting jobs were carried out on paid basis and the complainant paid Rs.5313.68 to the respondent no.2.

vi.      On 23/10/13 after running of 9913 Kms, the   complainant brought the vehicle in question to the workshop of respondent no.2 herein for 3^rd free routine maintenance service as recommended. The demanded repairs were poor pick up at 80 kmph. The respondent no.2 carried out the 3^rd free service as required.  The complainant paid the cost of consumable items like as screen wash, engine oil, oil filter, plug assembly oil drain, air cleaner element, wheel weights etc as the same are not covered under warranty. The respondent no.2 replaced the Charger Assembly, turbo under warranty free of charge as per the terms and condition. The complainant paid Rs.1852.95 towards consumable items.

vii.     On 01/01/14 after running of 14166 Kms, the   complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of respondent no.2 for running repair with a specific problem “Brake Not Effective”.  The respondent no.2 replaced the front brake pad assembly set on paid basis being a consumable items as the brake pad were not covered under warranty. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1897.57 to the respondent no.2 for the said demanded repairs and took the delivery of vehicle.

viii     On 31/01/14 after running of 16104 Kms, the    complainant brought the vehicle for washing and cleaning and fender lining.  The complainant neither reported the earlier jobs nor pointed out any specific problem.  The respondent no.2 carried the vehicle washing and cleaning and replaced the fender lining (plastic item) on paid basis as the same is not covered under warranty.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1357.36 to the respondent no.2 for the said job and took the deliver.

ix       On 09/4/14 after running of 19559 Kms, the   complainant brought the vehicle again for accidental repair on paid basis as the accidental repair are not covered under warranty.  The complainant sought bonnet/Hood replacement under Motor Insurance Policy. The respondent no.2 replaced damaged parts like as Hose Inter Cooler Inlet No.2, Front fog lamp, Front Bumper, cap front bumper, painting etc. under insurance cover.

x.       On 24/4/14 after running of 19953, the   complainant brought the vehicle for 4^th paid routine maintenance service as recommended with a specific defect that “Engine Not Starting”.  The respondent no.2 carried out the routine maintenance service on paid basis and charges for the consumable items as the same are not  covered under warranty. The engine jobs were carried out under warranty free of charge as per the terms and condition of warranty.  The vehicle was ready for delivery on 6/5/14 but the complainant abandoned the vehicle and filed the present complaint for replacement of engine.

xi       On 16/5/14, the complainant filed the complaint   without any cause of action seeking replacement of engine or replacement.”

On 09.04.2014 when the vehicle was brought to the workshop as a case of accident it was examined and it was doubted that engine might be effected due to that accident.  On 24.04.2014 minor fault in piston pin ring, oil plus  PSP, ring, All+oil PMP ASY-DSL R&R in the engine was found and was removed free of cost under the warranty.  On 25.04.2014 the vehicle was ready for the delivery and information was given to complainant, but, he did not collect the same. There was no deficiency in service on it’s part.  Objections about maintainability of complaint under Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (In short “Act”), concealment of true facts, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In addition thereto O.P.No.2 alleged that the warranty was subject to terms and conditions of the warranty.  Complainant sent vehicle to workshop for check-up on 05.07.2013 after covering 406 Kms and no defect was found. On 01.10.2013 accidental repairs were done, as mentioned above.  He obtained free inspection service on 15.07.2013 and 25.08.2013.  At that time he did not point out any defect. Turbo was not changed after gap of three months as alleged by him, rather it was replaced at the time of third free service after covering 9913 Kms.  He was liable to pay for normal wear and tear i.e., oil, belt etc.  There was no warranty of those articles. Warranty was provided upto 40,000 Kms or 24 months to replace and repair components as mentioned in Owner’s Manual.  Problem in the engine was removed, so there was no necessity to replace the same.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After hearing counsels for the parties, learned District Forum allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 06.05.2015 and directed as under:-

“Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to  replace the defective engine of the vehicle of the complainant with new engine within one month from the date of passing of this order, failing which, after expiry of statutory period of filing the appeal, the complainant will become entitled to charge Rs.200/- (Rs.Two hundred) per day from the respondents till replacement of the defective engine of the vehicle.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, both the O.Ps. have preferred the aforesaid appeals.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that there is no evidence or report on the file to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the engine. The minor defects and normal wear and tear is no ground to presume that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Learned District Forum did not take into consideration the evidence produced by them and gave the findings as per evidence produced by the complainant.  Their evidence was not  discussed at all. So impugned order is without any basis and the same be set aside.

9.      These arguments are of no avail.  It is well settled preposition of law that report of expert is not necessary in each and every case to determine whether there was manufacturing defect in any vehicle or not.  This fact can be looked into by the Commission as per evidence available on the file as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Telco Vs. Hardip Singh and Anr. 100 2011 (3 CLT 382, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Ram Lakhan, 2014 (2) CPJ 760 and Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra and Anr. 220 2010 (2) COPT,363 that if a vehicle is taken to the workshop time and again for repairs it can be considered as manufacturing defect.  It is opined therein that in the absence of expert opinion it cannot be presumed that there is manufacturing defect.  In para No.7 of the reply it is admitted by O.P.No.1 that piston pin, ring etc. of the engine were replaced.  Piston pin, ring etc. are the major parts of the engine.  If they were not functioning properly, it can be presumed that there was some manufacturing defect. The O.Ps. have miserably failed to prove that this defect occurred due to accident, though it was alleged in this para that this defect might have occurred due to accident.  The vehicle was taken to the workshop of O.P.No.1 on 09.04.2014 but it is no where mentioned in the job card of the said date that engine might have been damaged due to the accident.  The parts changed at that time are clearly mentioned therein. If there was doubt about defect in engine the same must have been pointed out there and then. If it was not done it is fault of the O.Ps. because vehicle was  in warranty period.  In the absence of any cogent evidence to this effect it can be safely presumed that this defect did not occur due to the accident as  alleged by them.  It cannot be alleged by O.Ps. that complainant never complained about poor pick-up as opined by District forum.  From the perusal of job card dated 23.10.2013 Ex.C-6 it is clear that complainant told about poor pick-up.  He also reported about light of engine oil etc., as mentioned therein.  So it cannot be alleged that there was no complaint by the complainant qua this fact.  As per O.Ps. turbo was replaced when the vehicle was brought for third free service on 23.10.2013.  Respondent No.2 replaced charger assembly, turbo under warranty free of charge as per the terms and condition. This defect could have been due to defective turbo charger.  Mere replacement of turbo charger is not a solution when the engine is once damaged.  So learned District Forum rightly came to conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the engine and it requires replacement. The O.Ps. produced only those job cards which were suitable to them.  They have only produced those job cards vide which the repair was conducted.  They did not produce job card where there was complaint about pick-up etc.  There is nothing in the evidence of the O.Ps. to disbelieve the version of the complainant or disagreeing the impugned order.  Learned District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and directed respondents to replace the defective engine.  There is no ground for interference in impugned order. Resultantly both appeals are dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.574 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.

11.    The original judgment be attached with appeal No.518 of 2015 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.574 of 2015.

April 27th, 2016                     Urvashi Agnihotri                 R.K.Bishnoi,                                                             Member                                  Judicial ember                                                           Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench               

S.K.