Karnataka

StateCommission

CC/4/2018

Hemanth Bafna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.B.Sadashivappa

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

 

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Consumer Complaint No. 4/2018

 

Hemanth Bafna S/o. Sri Pukhraj Bafna, R/at No.2/1, 2nd cross, Nehrunagar, Bengaluru-560020 (By Sri. R.B.Sadashivappa) V/s

….Complainant

1.  Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.      C/o. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd.      Level 7, Mfar Green Heart Phase IV,      Manyata Tech Park, Off Nagavara,      Hebbala Outer Ring road,      Bengaluru-560045 2.  Vinayaka Cars Pvt. Ltd.      Showroom No.219/11,      Bellary road, Ramana Maharshi Road,      Palace Orchards, Sadashivanagara,      Bengaluru-560080 3.  Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.      Plot No.A1/1, Five star Industrial Area,      Shendra, Aurangabad,      Maharastra-431001 (OP Nos.1 & 3 by M/s. Juris Nexus OP No.2 – placed ex-parte )

..…Opposite Parties

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to OPs to pay complainant a sum of Rs.37,62,717/- i.e., Rs.25,40,962/- towards cost of the car, Rs.3,91,755/- towards interest on loan, Rs.30,000/- towards after ale service charges etc.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2015 complainant purchased the car i.e., Skoda Octavia 1.8 TSI Automatic Petrol Car from the OP No.2 for the price of Rs. 25,40,962/- and the said car is bearing Registration No.KA-04 MQ-1084.  It is the case of the complainant that almost from the day one, there was trouble in the car.  The car had following defects:

1. ‘Jerk’ after being driving after gap of 3-4 hours
2. Sizzling sound on the front right of the car
3. Rattling sound on the front left side of the car
4. Creaking sound near the suspension when driven on a speed breaker
5. Noise in the AC
6. 3mm tape to trap some sounds in the boot
7. Cabin noise
8. Abnormal roaring of the engine at the lowering speeds
9. Faulty cabin lights in the rear
10. Shuddering of the car
11. Sun visor giving away
12. Issues with the side view mirrors
13. Damaged under chassis cover
14. Dent on the rear end of the car

3. It is alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the car and the OPs have played unfair trade practice in selling a defective car to the complainant and there was deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd OP.  Further it is contended that on account of the fact the car was defective, complainant could not use it regularly and he has to depend on the public transport like taxis for which he has spend lot of money.  Further states that he has taken loan for purchase of the car and he has paid the interest unnecessarily.  Thus, sought to allow the complaint.
4. After service of notice OP Nos. 1 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed common version.  Notice on OP No.2 served and called out absent.  Placed exparte. 
5. OP Nos. 1 and 3 admitted that the complainant h as purchased Skoda Octavia 1.8 TSI automatic petrol car registered as KA-04 MQ- 1084 on 03.06.2015 and denied all other allegations of the complainant.  Further OP Nos.1 and 3 contended that the authorized dealer informs that the car was brought to the workshop for running repairs, services and for fitting accessories only.  The same can be resolved by service station by replacing batteries, by replacing LH running board, front AC vent and fender lining as per the requirements and as on 16.05.2018 the car has run about 35,770 kms.  Hence, car would not have run for that many kilometers if it suffers from manufacturing defect as per the allegations of complainant and prays to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex. C1 to C11.  On behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 3, Area Manager of OP No.3 filed affidavit evidence.
7. Now the points for consideration are:
   1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
   2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought ?
   3.    What is the order?
8. The findings to the above points are:
   1. Negative
   2. Negative
   3. As per final order.
9. Heard from OP No.1.  The complainant has submitted written arguments in 2019 itself.
10. Perused the complaint of the complainant, objections of OP Nos. 1 and 3, evidence affidavit of both parties and documents produced by complainant.  We noticed that it is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased Skoda Octavia 1.8 TSI automatic petrol car registered as KA-04 MQ-1084 on 03.06.2015 by availing finance.  The allegation of the complainant is that from day one there was trouble / problem as under:

1. ‘Jerk’ after being driving after gap of 3-4 hours
2. Sizzling sound on the front right of the car
3. Rattling sound on the front left side of the car
4. Creaking sound near the suspension when driven on a speed breaker
5. Noise in the AC
6. 3mm tape to trap some sounds in the boot
7. Cabin noise
8. Abnormal roaring of the engine at the lowering speeds
9. Faulty cabin lights in the rear
10. Shuddering of the car
11. Sun visor giving away
12. Issues with the side view mirrors
13. Damaged under chassis cover
14. Dent on the rear end of the car

11. Hence, alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said car.  Per contra, OP Nos. 1 and 3 denied said allegations of the complainant and contended that car was brought to the authorized service station for running repairs, service and for fitting accessories only and same could be serviced by the service station by replacing battery, LH running board, front AC vent and fender lining as per the requirements. 
12. Perused Ex.C11, extended warranty certificate dated 31.03.2017 warranty is extended till 14.06.2019.  Perused Ex.C8, the job card/ service history, we noticed that complainant has left the car to the authorized service centre first time on 30.11.2015 and subsequently, on 09.06.2016, 21.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 22.08.2016, 02.11.2016, 28.11.2016, 29.12.2016 and 06.05.2017 and in the column “repair type” it was mentioned as running repair, service camp, accessory, free checkup and paid service.  Moreover, service centre contended that as per the complaint’s allegation they had done the services by replacing the parts as per the requirements and also there is no any major repair was mentioned in the history card.  Complainant has alleged that the car has manufacturing defect, but the complainant has not produced relevant documents to prove his allegations.  The burden is on the person who alleges.  In the present complaint complainant has alleged that car has manufacturing defect.  Then it is the duty of complainant to produce expert evidence or technical evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the said car.  The complainant has produced e-mail communication made with the OP as Ex.C9 and C10, but, it is not sufficient to prove the fact that said car has manufacturing defect.  The complainant has to produce expert opinion or technical evidence which is essential.  In the absence of expert or technical evidence it would be difficult to assess that vehicle purchased by the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect.  Moreover, the said car is in running condition.  The complainant has run the car about 35,770 kms. till 16.05.2018 and still it is with the complainant.  Hence, considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against OPs.  Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*