DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 371/2013
Date of Institution 06/05/2013
Order reserved 27/11/2017
Date of Order 29/11/2017
In matter of
Dr. Mrs. Asha Singh, adult
w/o Dr P Singh.
R/o- C-36, Sector 51,
Kendriya Vihar, Noida, Distt. GB Nagar, UP
Through – Husband (Dr P Singh)……………………..…………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s SKODA Auto India Pvt Ltd. (SAIPL)
605, ICC Tower, S Road,
Pune, India
2-Jai Auto (Dealer SAIPL)
Authorised Service Centre-W/S-SAIPL
38 & 3, Mohan Coop. Industrial Area, Road
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044
3- Nawab Motors (Dealer of SAIPL)
Authorised Service Centre-W/S-SAIPL
87, FIE, Patpargunj Industrial Area
Delhi 110092 ………………………………………………………………………….Opponents
Quorum ………………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh President
Dr P N Tiwari Member
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief--This complaint had been filed through authorised representative, Dr P Singh, husband of complainant for the deficiency in services of u/s 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) and r/w sec. 2(1)(r) for unfair trade practice against OP2 & OP3.
Facts of the case - Complainant purchased Octavia car, vide registration no. HR 06-9236 from Jai Auto/OP2, on 14/04/2010 after paying in cash.
It was stated that the car had some defects at the time of purchase of the car which was noted by OP2 and assured to get rectify as soon as parts would be available from OP1/SAIPL, but he never got the parts replaced or defects rectified (Anne. A1). It was also stated that tubeless tyre also got torn which was replaced on the direction from OP1 on 03/10/2010 (Ann.A2).
Complainant stated that within one year, the rear wheel shocker got broken which was also replaced by OP2 after great harassment (Ann.A3) and again in Mar. 2011, engine oil got leaked for which OP3 replacement of ‘Intercooler’ part fitted inside the engine under warranty, but charged Rs 13,000/-for service and labour charges. As the said car was under standard warranty of one year, so again after lot of humiliation, leakage was repaired, but did not refund service charges (Ann. A4). After some time again ‘Intercooler’ was again replaced by OP2.
Complainant stated that as per the guidelines from SAIPL, ‘Time Chain’ and other spares were replaced under 60,000 KM running of car. During taking PUC certificate on 30/10/2012, his car engine got stopped and did not start, so he called ‘On Road Assistance’ service provider who took his car by crane to Nawab Motor/OP3 which was near to the PUC centre and crane charged sum of Rs 25,00/- (Anne. A5).
P3 checked the car and an estimate of about Rs 18,000/-was given and promised to deliver the car on 31/10/2012, but no job work was done till 11/11/2012 despite of repeated visiting to OP3 and calling OP3 on their telephone, so no payment was made. OP3 charged a sum of Rs 2809/- from complainant for inspection of the car.
Seeing the callous attitude of OP3, complainant shifted his car to Jai Auto/OP2 on 11/11/2012 where technical team of OP 2 inspected the car and engine and found blocking of ‘Intercooler and Turbo Charger’ which was later replaced and bill of sum Rs 1,11,828/-was given on 01/02/2013 after keeping his car in the workshop for over two months by OP2 (Anne. A6). The bill was objected by the complainant as no specific reason was given for raising the huge bill, so complaint to OP1.
After lots of humiliation, the bill was reduced to Rs 1,02,781/-, but again this amount was too high, so again complainant lodged complaint to OP1 and finally bill was further reduced to Rs 57,537/- which was paid by complainant under protest. It was assured for road worthy car by OP2 (Ann.A8).
It was stated by complainant that no inspection report copy was given by OP1/SAIPL inspection team and no specific reason was given for the blockage of engine. The said car was taken by the complainant on 06/03/2013, but again car started giving trouble during starting with lots of noise just within 3 days from taking car from workshop of OP2. Seeing trouble in his car, complainant had apprehension car breakdown, thus he could not use freely and opted private means to earn his /her livelihood by making daily expenditure over Rs 500-600/ rupees per day.
It was stated that SAIPL/OP1 had given warranty of two years on all engine parts, but complainant paid huge bill of Rs 57,737/- despite SAIPL terms and condition had two years warranty despite revised bill was given to complainant (Anne. A9 & A 10).
Complainant sent number of emails to OP1 to reimburse the bill of Rs 57,737/- as paid by his under protest, but no reply was sent by OP1, so finally sent legal notice on 19/02/2013 for refund the bill of Rs 57,737/-paid under protest by the complainant. Hence, complainant claimed refund of under protest bill of Rs 57,737/- with compensation of Rs five lakh for physical and mental harassment and loss of his precious time of medical practice.
After receiving notices, all OPs put up their appearance and submitted written statement.
OP1 submitted that they were the manufacturer of the said car and denied all the contents and allegations of complainant. It was submitted that their all cars were thoroughly inspected by expert team of technician before the delivery of car to their customers and without inspection and customer satisfaction, cars were not delivered, even though standard warranty exist of all the parts. It was stated that this complaint was time barred as complaint was filed after two years of purchase. The said car had no manufacturing defect as car had run over 97000 km in 45 months.
OP1 also submitted terms and conditions and complainant was using his car normally. Under warranty tenure and as per their guidelines, various parts were replaced which was too admitted by the complainant. OP1 stated that delay in delivery occurred due to refusal of giving consent by the owner of the car and later the car was shifted to OP2 as non availability of certain required spare parts with OP1. All the allegations pertaining to expenditure and repeated visits by complainant to OP2 workshop were denied as per job card on record.
OP1 also denied for refund of amount Rs 57,737/- paid by complainant under protest as bill was as per the cost of the spare parts and their service charges because the car was without warranty and all their services were chargeable. Hence there was no deficiency in services or defective parts were ever given to the complainant. So, this complaint may be dismissed.
OP2/ Jai Auto submitted their written statement and stated that the said car had over 88956km on 30/05/2013 and was without warranty. It was admitted that the car was shifted from OP3/ Nawab Auto, an authorised workshop of OP1 for want of non availability required spare parts with OP3. OP1 was informed by OP2 for urgent inspection of car by technical team of OP1 who inspected and recommended for replacement of Turbo Charger, Intercoller and Long Block and OP2 replaced all the parts on the advice of OP1 under ‘Goodwill Warranty’ to the complainant, so OP2 replaced Throttle body, Timing kit, Self starter, Gear oil, Battery, Funnel, V-belt and adjuster. Hence, all the allegations against OP2 were denied as false and incorrect.
OP3 also submitted their written statement and stated that all the contents of complaint were wrong as denied. There was no cause of action arisen against OP3, so there was no deficiency in service against OP3. It was submitted that the said some parts of car engine were not available in their workshop, so the car was taken by complainant to OP2. As there was no contract or any consideration was received from complainant, hence neither deficiency nor unfair trade practice was labeled against OP3. It was admitted that the said car was brought by the crane and after inspection, rough estimate was prepared, but due to non availability of spare parts, car was taken to other workshop by complainant. Hence, there was no deficiency in services on their part.
Rejoinder and evidences were filed on affidavit by the complainant through her husband as authorised person and reaffirmed on oath that all the contents and evidences were correct and true and were on record. OPs had intentionally denied escaping from any liability due to deficiency in their services.
OP1/ M/s Skoda Auto India also filed their evidences on affidavit through Mr Nagesh S Sangle, Manager Legal stated on oath that OP1 had done their all the services as per SAIPL and various spare parts were replaced as per terms which was duly accepted by the complainant. All the facts and evidences were correct and were on record.
OP2/ M/s Jai Auto also filed evidences on affidavit through Mr Varun Kant Mishra, AR stated on oath that they do job as per the satisfaction of advices / instructions given by the expert team of OP1 and after the removal of defects in the vehicle, handed over to their customers on his acceptance. It was admitted that spare parts were available with them at the time when complainant’s car was brought from OP3 and had done services and took charges as per their rate list. It was also stated in their affidavit that the said car was out off warranty and all their services were paid and car had covered 88956km as on 30/05/2013. OP2 also stated that though engine had some starting problem, but maximum damages occurred while towing by crane which complainant had hired him. Thus car had maximum problems / defects which took considerable time to rectify / remove the defect and after that the car was handed over to complainant on 06/03/2013.
An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of Authorised Automobile Engineer working with Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. by Mr Rohit Raghav, Senior Manager Technical who also take care of Skoda Auto India Ltd (manufacturer of Skoda car). It was stated that technical inspection was done by himself “Online” basis from 16/11/2012 to 06/12/2012 on the findings submitted by OP2 workshop service engineers. He stated that engine suffered damages due to ‘oil starvation’ while turbo failed due to high RPM during emission test. He stated that such faults occur in diesel cars and during routine services from authorised workshop of OP1 all such faults if present were checked and rectified as per Skoda Owner’s Manual. In addition to this, under SAIPL Goodwill Warranty, maximum spare parts were replaced in the said car despite of out of warranty.
OP3 also submitted their affidavit through Mr Sunil Chaudhary as AR and stated on oath that the said car was brought by the complainant through crane and engine developed starting problem due to oil leakage from the right side of bumper. The engine oil was coming from inside the engine. As certain required engine parts of the said car were not available so as per the direction from OP1, the car was shifted to OP2 and thus they had no deficiency in services.
Arguments were heard from both party’s Ld counsels and order was reserved.
We have perused all the facts and evidences on record. It was noted that complainant took her car to OP3 while engine failed to start and oil started leaking at PUC centre. It was also evident that OP3 was also an authorised service centre and dealer of Skoda cars as OP2, but could not rectify the defects due to required spare parts with their workshop, car was taken by complainant to OP2 as on basis method. Here neither OP3 advised to take her car to OP2 or informed to OP1 about the damages occurred in the said engine of the car. There was no evidence on record in this reference, rather charged sum of Rs 2809/ under “Breakdown Charges” Rs 1000/- and Inspection Charges Rs 1500/- besides service tax (Ann. R7C). When breakdown / towing charges were paid by complainant a sum of Rs 2500/- to the crane owner, then there was no point of issue to charge this additional amount. More so, the car was kept with OP3 from 30/10/2012 to 11/11/2012 and bill of Rs 2809/- was raised where in written statement submitted by OP3 that no charges were taken. Even after doing inspection of the said car and keeping car for over 1 days itself amounts deficiency in services by OP3.
It was also seen that the technical inspection team of OP1/Skoda took the review of facts pertaining to the damages occurred in the engine through OP2 workshop service engineers was “Online” basis for many days. Here we presume that OP1 is a repute manufacturer of their four wheeler car/Skoda, has established reputation in the market and being a good quality car, their customers also belongs to good segments. It was the duty of the OP1 to send the expert technician’s team on the spot to verify the defects in the engine rather advising “online” to the service engineers of OP2. Also, there was no evidence or affidavit being filed by OP2 that their service engineers were qualified and experienced at that time of issue when ‘ONLINE’ informations were given by OP2 to OP1 online and advices were received from OP1’s technical team.
In addition to this, when damaged parts of the engine were replaced under Goodwill Warranty of OP1, issuing bill of over one lakh and reducing twice to Rs 57,737/- by OP2 was a matter of concern as if OP2 was dealing in bargain price method and that is why complainant paid under protest on 06/03/2013.
Taking merits and evidences on record, we come to the conclusion that complainant has established the deficiency on the part of OP2. We do not find any deficiency in the services of OP1 as there was no manufacturer defect in the engine was established, hence no liability can be fastened, but OP1 has to take a serious note that if any dealer or workshop of Skoda is authorised by them, then reputation in the market has to be kept above all by all means may be of spare parts or expert inspection team for ON THE SPOT verifications and not on the basis of ONLINE advices which may be dangerous to customers in the sense of loss of time and finances besides mental agony and the market reputation of manufacturer.
Thus, we come to the conclusion that by seeing the conducts of OPs, where OP1 had issued “ Goodwill Warranty” on spare parts, given to OP2 and bill raised by OP2, we award a lumpsome compensation of Rs 30,000/- to be paid jointly by OP1 and 2 within 30 days from the receiving of this order. If fails to comply the order, complainant shall be entitled for 6% interest from the date of order till realized.
The copy of order be sent to the parties as per section 18 0f the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.
(Dr) P N Tiwari-Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur -Member
Sh. Sukhdev Singh - President
