Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased a ‘Skoda Superb Car from Opposite Party No.2 (dealer) on 26.8.2009 for his exclusive and personal use by paying a huge amount of Rs.18,73,874/-.  The grouse of the complainant was that within 48 hours of the purchase of car i.e. on 28.8.2009, the car suddenly lost all driving power and got stranded in the middle of the road. After basic inspection of the car Opposite Party No2 informed that the gearbox of the car was defective and would have to be replaced with a new one. It was stated that though the car remained in the workshop of Opposite Party NO.2 for 16 days, yet no part was available with them (dealer) and during this period the complainant had to face a lot of difficulty.  Ultimately, the car was delivered to him by Opposite Party No.2 on 12.9.2009.  It was alleged that immediately after the delivery of car the complainant noticed vibration, when accelerated and driven at higher speed, yet he was under the impression that this was due to the tyres, which was also brought to the notice of the   Opposite Parties. But when the vibration kept on increasing gradually he sent the car to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2 on 11.5.2010 which was kept by them till 2.7.2010 (wrongly mentioned as 2009 in  para 7 of the complaint) and during this period they did experimentation and tinkering with the car of the complainant. However, once again certain parts were not available with Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that during this period the complainant again had to undergo extreme mental trauma and harassment and expressed the same to the   Opposite Parties through series of emails, and requested them to replace the car or refund the entire price of the car, as he had lost all the confidence in the vehicle but the same was ignored by them. On 2.7.2010 the   Opposite Parties delivered the vehicle and told that the same was completely roadworthy and that the complainant should use it till the remaining parts were replaced, as and when received from Opposite Party No.1(manufacturer). But to his surprise, within an hour of taking the delivery, the car again faced the same problem, as experienced by him on 28.8.2009. The car was shifted to the workshop, of Opposite Party No.2, and after keeping the same for 66 days (from 11.5.2010 to 16.7.2010), the same was delivered to him on 16.7.2010. But even thereafter one or the other problem kept on cropping up regarding which correspondence was exchanged between the parties in which again request for replacement or refund of the  price of the car was made but the same was turned down by the Opposite Parties. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.4.2011 upon the   Opposite Parties, but to no effect. It was further stated that thereafter on 11.10.2011 when the complainant alongwith his family was returning from a religious trip, with his family, the gearbox of the car broke down and the car all of a sudden and without any warning, lost all driving power and became neutral on the National Highway near Dappar and they were stranded there for one and a half hour, and he had to call car of his friend for dropping his family at home and towed the car on truck. Opposite Party NO.2 inspected  the vehicle and told the complainant that Mechatronic would have to be replaced and he  will have to leave the vehicle at the workshop till the part was supplied by Opposite Party No.1. In this regard, he once again sent emails dated 29.10.2011 and 2.11.2011 to the   Opposite Parties, but to no effect, as they bluntly refused to replace the vehicle and asked him to take delivery of the car without permanently redressing his grievance.   It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the   Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence,  this complaint.

2                     In its written reply Opposite Party No.2 (dealer), while admitting the factual matrix of the complaint, submitted that the vehicle, in question, got some problems, which was a rarest of rare case. However, the car was repaired at the earliest possible, and some time was taken to import the spare parts which were not in the stock. It was stated that warning on page 3 of the Skoda Auto Owners Manual of Instructions for India, clearly indicates that certain equipment may only be available, after delay or not at all or is offered only in certain export countries.  It was further stated that because of high cost, it was impossible to keep every part in stock and due to some import formalities, it takes some time to import some part from Chechoslvakia, due to which some delay occurred in the repair of the vehicle. Moreover, no charges were made for the repairs and replacements, and in order to earn goodwill, of the complainant the   answering Opposite Party, called engineers from Aurangabad and tried out every thing till they were able to solve the problem.   It was admitted that collant, engine water pump and clutch plate were replaced free of charges.   It was further admitted that the car had a break down on 11.10.2011 due to gear box trouble, and it was towed to the   Opposite Parties garage.  It was further stated that the car had by then traveled a distance of  41,624 kms  as the same was purchased on 26.8.2009. Thus, the original warranty period of two years had already expired. It was further stated that this Commission in an earlier case had already held that if a vehicle had traveled 40,000/- kms it could not be held that it had a manufacturing defect, as such there was no question of replacement of the vehicle in the present case, after extensive use for more than two year. But as a gesture of goodwill and bonafide cooperation the   Opposite Parties, extended period of warranty for one more years and showed willingness to replace the mechtronic and repair/replace the gear box free of charge but despite this offer the complainant was not justified in demanding replacement of the vehicle after using the same for more than two years.    It was admitted that the complainant was paid some hire charges for the inconvenience caused to him but he did not produce any receipt thereof. Therefore, the amount claimed for reimbursement was astronomically exaggerated and imaginary.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the   Opposite Parties nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

3                     Counsel for the Opposite Parties on 31.1.2012, while filing reply by way of affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, submitted that the reply of Opposite Party No2, be also read as reply, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.  Thus Opposite Party No1 did not file any separate reply and adopted reply of Opposite Party No.2.

4                     The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5                     We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record, carefully.

6                     The submission of the learned Counsel for the complainant, is that after paying a hefty amount of Rs.18,73,874/- the luxurious and hi-end Skoda Superb Car was purchased for the exclusive personal use of the complainant but within 48 hours of the purchase the same had become defective, when it lost all driving power, and got stranded in the middle of the road and put the life of the complainant in danger. He further submitted that the vehicle is defective and had been giving problem from the very beginning and every time it put his life in danger but the   Opposite Parties could not rectify the problem permanently to his satisfaction. They delayed the repair every time due to which the complainant had to face a lot of inconvenience. Therefore the complainant had lost all the faith in the vehicle.  It was further submitted that the vehicle is still lying with Opposite Party No.2, which is evident from Annexure C-15 (job card) and Annexure C-18 (email sent to the   Opposite Parties ).

7                    On the other hand the Counsel for the Opposite Parties while admitting all the problems having arisen with the vehicle,  submitted that delay in repair of the vehicle occurred because some time was taken to import the spare parts from Chechoslvakia, which were not in the stock, and prior warning to this effect, was already given on page 3 of the Skoda Auto Owners Manual of Instructions for India, wherein it was clearly mentioned that certain equipment may only be available after delay or not at all or is offered only in certain export Countries. He further submitted that , thus, there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the  Opposite Parties

8                      There is no dispute, that the vehicle had developed defect, time and again and delay occurred in its repair, as is apparent from the job cards placed on record. In para No.9 of the reply the Opposite Parties apparently admitted that inconvenience was caused to the complainant due the defects which arose in the vehicle.  The contention of the   Opposite Parties that  delay in repair occurred due to non-availability of parts in the stock, which were to be imported from Chechoslvakia and warning regarding delay in availability of parts was already mentioned in page 3 of the Skoda Auto Owners Manual of Instructions for India, so there was no deficiency on its part, cannot be taken into consideration because in the present case, not only delay occurred in the repair but the defects in the vehicle were never completely rectified/removed to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Due to this reason the defects arose in the vehicle time and again despite replacement of some parts. Even after keeping the vehicle for 66 (from 11.5.2010 to 16.7.2010) days with it the Opposite Parties again could not completely rectify the defects. Once again the vehicle got defective on 11.10.2011, which could have endangered the life of the complainant. Moreover, the   Opposite Parties have not produced on record any satisfaction note on behalf of the complainant, which could show that whenever the vehicle was brought to their workshop, it was repaired to the full satisfaction of the complainant. Hence, the   Opposite Parties never removed the defects in the vehicle completely and every time handed over the same to the complainant in temporary roadworthy condition. By doing this, they put the life of the complainant and his family members in danger. Hence there was deficiency on the part of the   Opposite Parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.

9                     The contention of the   Opposite Parties, that no machine with moving parts has ever been manufactured which has never developed any defect, and even space ships built at the cost of billions of dollars develop defects. It is correct that no machinery may be defect free, but the issue involved, in the present case, is that when a machine manufactured by a Company becomes defective time and again, it is the duty of the manufacturer or its dealer to remove the defect to the full satisfaction of the customer, and if they are unable to remove/rectify the defect even after replacement of its part, then they cannot runaway from their responsibility. Thus the customer should be entitled to replacement or refund of the price of the said machine. In the present case the vehicle got defective a number of times. The defects, which occurred were major. The same could not be removed by Opposite Party No.2 permanently, owing to which the complainant had to face mental agony and harassment. From the record, it is evident, that Opposite Party No.2 dealer has not been able to remove the defects completely, despite carrying out repairs, a number of times and replacement of some parts of the car. Therefore, Opposite Party  No.1 being the manufacturer of the vehicle should be given an opportunity to repair the vehicle, to the full satisfaction of the complainant, and  Opposite Party No.2, shall send the vehicle, which is still lying with it, at its own expenses, to the premises of  Opposite Party No.1 for necessary repairs.

10                 The next submission of the complainant is that due to deficient act of the   Opposite Parties, he had to undergo a lot of inconvenience, but the   Opposite Parties while admitting the same paid only a meager  amount for hiring taxi for 10 days. The complainant in the prayer clause sought compensation of  Rs.4,50,000/- as charges on account of hiring taxi, which was opposed by the   Opposite Parties, being exaggerated and imaginary. It was admitted by them that some hiring charges were paid to the complainant but he had not produced any receipt thereof, on the basis of which he had calculated the aforesaid amount.  Even we are of the opinion that the amount calculated by the complainant, as charges, for hiring taxi, is on higher side. A perusal of
Annexure C-7 (colly) shows that the   Opposite Parties vide email dated 7.7.2010 had offered the complainant Rs.3000/- per day as charges for hiring taxi to avoid any inconvenience to him. Thus the   Opposite Parties are liable to pay him taxi charges @Rs.3000/- per day.  The complainant in para No.7 of the complaint submitted that the   Opposite Parties kept the vehicle with them for 66 days (from 11.5.2010 to 16.7.2010) and paid charges from 7^th  to 16^th, July 2010, only for 10 days. Hence the   Opposite Parties are liable to pay him taxi charges for remaining 56 days @Rs.3000/- per day. 

11                             In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint has merit and the same is liable to succeed.  We, accordingly allow the complaint with costs and direct the   Opposite Parties as under;

i)                     Opposite Party  No.2(dealer) is directed to send, the vehicle in question (lying with it)   for repair to the premises of  Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer) within  30 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of the order, at its own expenses,

ii)                   Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer) is directed to take over the vehicle from Opposite Party No.2, at its service centre, and repair the vehicle/replace the defective parts to the full satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the vehicle from Opposite Party No.2 under the supervision of its panel of experts and obtain their affidavit to the effect that the said vehicle has been fully rectified  and made roadworthy, alongwith an extended warranty of one year from the date of repair.

iii)                  Failure on the part of the   Opposite Parties, to repair the vehicle to the full satisfaction of the complainant will make them liable to refund the full price of the vehicle to him.

iv)                 The   Opposite Parties are further directed to pay to the complainant
Rs. 1,68,000/- (Rs.3000 x 56 days, as held in para No.10 of the order) as charges for hiring taxi.

v)                   The   Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment.

vi)                 The   Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs of litigation. 

12                             The aforesaid order shall be complied with by the   Opposite Parties, within the time stipulated in para 11 (i) and (ii) of the order, failing which, the opposite parties shall  pay interest @ 12% P.A. on the amounts, awarded  in para 11 (iii) (iv) and (v) from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs.. 

13                             Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.