Date of Filing: 21.07.2010
Date of Order: 25.05.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20
Dated: 25TH DAY OF MAY 2011
PRESENT
Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.
Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.
COMPLAINT NO: 1664 OF 2010
Krishna Murthy
No. 20/1, Infantry Road
Bangalore 560 001 Complainant
V/S
1. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
A-1/1, M.I.D.C.
Five Star Industrial Estate
Aurangabad 431 201
2. Tafe Access Limited
Authorized Dealers for
Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
No. 53, St. Marks Road
Bangalore 560 001 Opposite Parties
ORDER
By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a car Skoda Octavia Rider on 24.04.2006 for consideration of Rs. 11,16,698/- from opposite party No. 2 who is authorized dealer. Complainant’s son-in-law took the car for the first paid service to opposite party No. 2 on 25.02.2010. On 26.02.2010 service advisor of the opposite party No. 2 informed that car could not be serviced as he found vehicle operation is jerking during his inspection and vehicle could not be serviced without setting right the faults and the estimated cost of repairs approximately is about Rs. 1,00,000/-. Complainant shocked to note this. Car is clocking just 36,676 kms and faults in the engine are noticed at first paid service. Difference found in the engine is only due to manufacturing defect. Son-in-law of the complainant lodged the complaint in customer care of opposite party. Even after one week the customer care executives failed to attend the complaint. Again one more complaint was lodged. For which no reply received. Opposite parties failed to provide service. Legal notice sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not replied to the notice. Due to negligence of opposite parties much inconvenience and loss is caused to the complainant apart from mental agony. Therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the opposite parties to replace the entire engine. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite parties be directed to replace engine of the car and direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for deficiency of service with cost of litigation.
2. The opposite party No. 2 has filed version stating that complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is bad in law and on facts. Car was purchased by the complainant on 24.04.2006. The complainant has successfully run the car for over 4 years without facing any problem. The opposite party has provided three free services to the vehicle. On 25th February 2010 complainant brought the car to the work shop for second paid service and complainant had run the car for over 36000 kms without facing any problem indicates that there is no manufacturing defect in the car. Opposite party is ready and willing to provide services. It is the complainant who has refused to give his approval and get the car repaired. Opposite party has explained the situation. Despite of bonafide efforts complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. Affidavit evidences and documents are filed.
4. Arguments are heard.
5. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant has proved manufacturing defect in the vehicle?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of engine?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for the damages?
REASONS
6. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 24.04.2006 and he has filed complaint on 21.07.2010 after more than 4 years of purchase. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had left the car for 3 free services and the opposite parties have given three free services as per the commitment. After free services the vehicle was left with the opposite parties for paid service. The complainant even left the vehicle for paid service for two times. As per admitted case of complainant himself the car has run for over 36,000 kms from the date of purchase without facing any problem. The complainant has not complained about the manufacturing defect of the engine or vehicle to opposite parties during three free services. If at all there was any manufacturing / mechanical defect in the vehicle it could have been noticed by the complainant soon after the purchase after running the vehicle for few kilometers. Even during first or second free service the manufacturing defect could have been noticed. But such things had not happened with respect to present vehicle. When this is the case how can the complainant claim replacement of engine after four years of purchase. Admittedly, the complainant has not produced expert opinion to establish the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The complainant submitted that when the car was left for service on 26.02.2010 opposite party informed and gave estimate cost of repairs approximately at Rs. 1,00,000/- and requested the complainant for giving consent but the complainant had not given consent for repairs and replacement of parts and he has left the vehicle with the opposite parties without giving approval for the repairs. The opposite parties even now also ready and willing to provide services and repair vehicle provided the complainant has to give approval. This gesture on the part of opposite party is proper and correct. The complainant has to give approval and consent to get the car repair and made ready. The opposite parties shall give a satisfactory service to the vehicle in case the complainant gives approval. If it is possible the opposite party can give maximum concession and rebate in respect of spare parts that will be used for making the vehicle ready. At this stage after lapse of more than 4 years it is not permissible in law to replace engine of the car as requested by the complainant. Admittedly, there is no warranty for replacement of engine after more than 4 years. When the case does not come under period of warranty how can the complainant request for replacement of engine. The case of the complainant cannot be accepted and under the law it is not possible to give direction to the opposite parties to replace the engine. In the result I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to provide service to the vehicle to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant on getting approval for repairs from the complainant. Parties to bear their own cost.
8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.
9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25TH DAY OF MAY 2011.
Order accordingly,
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings.
MEMBER MEMBER
