Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
- Present complaint has been filed by Dr.Jaswinder Singh under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant had purchased a Skoda Rapid 1.6 diesel car bearing registration No. PB 02 CL 5891 from the opposite party No.2 on 29.10.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant was regularly getting his car serviced from the authorized service centre till date and had been getting the required replacements in the car parts . The complete service record is available with the opposite parties. At the time of sale of the c ar i.e. on 29.10.2014 the company was providing a warranty of two years, however as on today the company is providing a warranty of 4 years on the same model. As per the warranty of the care the same was to end on 29.10.2016. In the month of May 2017 when the vehicle had done only 38000 km , the car suddenly stopped and even after a lot of effort did not start though the engine cranked upon ignition. The complainant immediately called the service centre of opposite party No.2 and they sent a mechanic who after spending a lot of time was neither able to get the car started nor was he able to detect the fault in the vehicle and the complainant was advised to take the vehicle to the service centre. The complainant was provided no assistance by the company and had to himself at his own cost get the vehicle taken to the service centre, where no one at the service centre was able to detect the fault in the vehicle. Next day after getting no call from the service centre the complainant had to himself again go to the service centre where the service advisor told the complainant that the whole fuel system of the vehicle had failed and was required to be replaced and the cost of which was approximately Rs. 2.7 lacs. Failure of the fuel system of a car costing approximately Rs. 9 lacs within a running of 38000 km is nothing but a manufacturing defect. The ground taken by the service centre that a poor quality of fuel was used which caused rusting in the vehicle is also baseless . It is pertinent to mention here that rusting is not a process which takes a day to happen and it is over time that rusting takes place but despite the fact that the vehicle was coming for regular service the opposite parties failed to detect the same and if the experts of the company were unable to detect any such thing how can it be expected from a customer to be able to detect any such abnormality. Aggrieved by the poor performance of the car , the complainant sent an email dated 15.5.2017 to the customer care of opposite party No.1 . After receiving the email of the complainant, a representative of the opposite parties contacted the complainant and acknowledged the defect in the car which included poor fuel quality, manufacturing defect or poor service . However the complainant was advised that since the car was only a few months over the warranty period of 2 years and keeping in view the fact that now the company was giving 4 years warranty for the same car, he should make a representation to the company to treat his case sympathetically and get the repair done under warranty , however still he would have to bear some part of the cost of repair. Since the complainant immediately made a representation . After the representation the representatives of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the case had been sent to the company and only after approval of the same some action would be taken. Finally opposite party No.2 sent an e-mail with an estimate of repair which was approved by the company and the costs which had to be borne by the complainant. Copy of estimate of approved and non approved estimate of repair is Annexure C-6 which shows that despite Rs. 2,07,791/- being approved still the complainant was made to pay Rs. 57,638/- which was a huge amount , however still the complainant agreed to pay the same as he had no other choice. Finally the repair was made and the complainant was made to pay more than Rs. 57638/- . The bills of amount paid by the complainant are annexed as Annexure C-7. The action of the opposite parties in first selling a car with inherent manufacturing defect to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused lot of mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs :-
- Opposite parties be directed to refund Rs. 57,638/- towards payment of repair ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment may also be awarded to the complainant ;
- Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice ;
- Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that legal relationship between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is on principal to principal basis. Opposite party No.1 does not receive the price from any individual customer. The opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 2 raises invoices and against those invoices opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer of Skoda cars send the opposite party No.2 the vehicles and that is the only relationship between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. With regard to the other allegations it is pertinent to mention that the vehicle went to opposite party No.2 for servicing and repair hence nothing can be attributed against the opposite party No.1 . It was submitted that warranty of a vehicle is as per the terms and conditions of the warranty and as per the company policy and not as per the whims and fancies of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the primary problem which the complainant has alleged is that the car was having some manufacturing defect because of which the engine of the car started giving trouble. The allegations of the complainant are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It was further submitted that the car in question i.e. PB 02 CL 5891 as per the complainant’s own averments was purchased in September 2014 and the alleged incident happened in May 2017 i.e. after a gap of almost two and half years and after the car did more than 38000 kms. The car in question never had any problem and as per the service record nothing can be attributed to show that there was any defect in the car. Furthermore starting problem or any other problem in car can happen due to multiple reasons. There are various other external factors such as intentional wrongdoing of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that nothing on record shows that the stopping of the car and not starting thereafter was due to any manufacturing defect. It was submitted that a mere perusal of history card of the car would reveal that on 30.5.2017 the car came to the agency for repairs due to starting problem and some parts of the car were changed at that time. The complainant had given approval on mail that summary of components of CR system will be paid by him and other major parts will be considered under goodwill warranty by Skoda India Private Limited. Also a request letter was received from the complainant for one time support of CR system. Then as per TSC guidelines the agency removed the fuel metric valve and rust particles were observed on it as well as in fuel rail which was due to water presence in fuel. The complete procedure was informed to the complainant and after his mail approval the agency replaced major parts of CR system under goodwill and summary of component were paid by the complainant. The complainant also gave a satisfaction note at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It is clear that complainant had not brought any cogent evidence to prove that there was a manufacturing defect. Furthermore all the repairs were conducted after consultation with the complainant and after getting his approval. Further more the complainant has not brought any expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. On the other hand opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that complainant was given the relief under goodwill gesture to the tune of Rs. 2,07,791/- and the complainant was charged a sum of Rs. 57,638/- only despite of the fact that the defect in the car was due to the use of adulterated fuel and as the complainant had been getting his car serviced at the service centre of opposite party No.2, therefore, opposite party No.1 was requested to give one time support as goodwill gesture. The complainant had given the satisfactory note at the time of delivery of the vehicle in question and therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand there is no evidence to show that the car in question had any manufacturing defect as it had already passed the warranty time and had covered 38000 kms.
4. It was further submitted that the car in question i.e. PB 02 CL 5891 as per the complainant’s own averments was purchased in September 2014 and the alleged incident happened in May 2017 i.e. after a gap of almost two and half years and after the car did more than 38000 kms. The car in question never had any problem and as per the service record nothing can be attributed to show that there was any defect in the car. Furthermore starting problem or any other problem in car can happen due to multiple reasons. There are various other external factors such as intentional wrongdoing of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that nothing on record shows that the stopping of the car and not starting thereafter was due to any manufacturing defect. It was submitted that a mere perusal of history card of the car would reveal that on 30.5.2017 the car came to the agency for repairs due to starting problem and some parts of the car were changed at that time. The complainant had given approval on mail that summary of components of CR system will be paid by him and other major parts will be considered under goodwill warranty by Skoda India Private Limited. Also a request letter was received from the complainant for one time support of CR system. Then as per TSC guidelines the agency removed the fuel metric valve and rust particles were observed on it as well as in fuel rail which was due to water presence in fuel. The complete procedure was informed to the complainant and after his mail approval the agency replaced major parts of CR system under goodwill and summary of component were paid by the complainant. The complainant also gave a satisfaction note at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It is clear that complainant had not brought any cogent evidence to prove that there was a manufacturing defect. Furthermore all the repairs were conducted after consultation with the complainant and after getting his approval. Further more the complainant has not brought any expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. In his bid to prove the case Ms.Navdeep Kaur,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of e-mail Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of complaint Ex.C-5, copy of estimate Ex.C-6, copy of invoice Ex.C-7, copy of photograph Ex.C-8, copy of legal notice Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 10.7.2017 ExC-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Sh.Pardeep Arora,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms.Amrita Jain, Sr.Manager Legal Ex.OP1/A, copy of history card Ex.OP1/1, copy of mail Ex.OP1/2, copy of request letter Ex.OP1/3, copy of satisfaction note Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
7. On the other hand Sh.Dhiraj Chopra,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sumit Passi, partner Ex.OP2/1, copy of satisfaction note Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party No.2.
8. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
9. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant had purchased a Skoda Rapid 1.6 diesel car bearing registration No. PB 02 CL 5891 from the opposite party No.2 on 29.10.2014. It was the case of the complainant that at the time of sale of the car i.e. on 29.10.2014 the company was providing a warranty of two years, however as on today the company is providing a warranty of 4 years on the same model. As per the warranty of the car the same was to end on 29.10.2016. In the month of May 2017 when the vehicle had done only 38000 km , the car suddenly stopped and even after a lot of effort did not start though the engine cranked upon ignition. The complainant immediately called the service centre of opposite party No.2 and they sent a mechanic who after spending a lot of time was neither able to get the car started nor was he able to detect the fault in the vehicle and the complainant was advised to take the vehicle to the service centre. The complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre, where service advisor told the complainant that the whole fuel system of the vehicle had failed and was required to be replaced and the cost of which was approximately Rs. 2.7 lacs. Failure of the fuel system of a car costing approximately Rs. 9 lacs within a running of 38000 km is nothing but a manufacturing defect. The ground taken by the service centre that a poor quality of fuel was used which caused rusting in the vehicle is also baseless .However the complainant was advised that since the car was only a few months over the warranty period of 2 years and keeping in view the fact that now the company was giving 4 years warranty for the same car, he should make a representation to the company to treat his case sympathetically and get the repair done under warranty , however still he would have to bear some part of the cost of repair. Since the complainant immediately made a representation . After the representation the representatives of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the case had been sent to the company and only after approval of the same some action would be taken. Finally opposite party No.2 sent an e-mail with an estimate of repair which was approved by the company and the costs which had to be borne by the complainant. Copy of estimate of approved and non approved estimate of repair is Annexure C-6 which shows that despite Rs. 2,07,791/- being approved still the complainant was made to pay Rs. 57,638/- which was a huge amount , however still the complainant agreed to pay the same as he had no other choice. Finally the repair was made and the complainant was made to pay more than Rs. 57638/- . The act of the opposite parties in first selling a car with inherent manufacturing defect to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused lot of mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant.
10. On the other hand Ld.counsel for the opposite parties have repelled the aforesaid contentions of the Ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that car in question was purchased in September 2014 and the alleged incident happened in May 2017 i.e. after a gap of almost two and half years and after the car did more than 38000 kms. The car in question never had any problem and as per the service record nothing can be attributed to show that there was any defect in the car. It was submitted that a mere perusal of history card of the car would reveal that on 30.5.2017 the car came to the agency for repairs due to starting problem and some parts of the car were changed at that time. The complainant had given approval on mail that summary of components of CR system will be paid by him and other major parts will be considered under goodwill warranty by Skoda India Private Limited. Also a request letter was received from the complainant for one time support of CR system. The complete procedure was informed to the complainant and after his mail approval the agency replaced major parts of CR system under goodwill and summary of component were paid by the complainant. The complainant also gave a satisfaction note at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Furthermore all the repairs were conducted after consultation with the complainant and after getting his approval. Further more the complainant has not brought any expert evidence to prove manufacturing defect .
11. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the car in question bearing registration No. PB 02 CL 5891 was purchased on 29.10.2014 and the same was having warranty of two years which was to end on 29.10.2016. It also stands proved on record that in the month of May 2017 i.e. after the expiry of the warranty period and when the vehicle had run 38000 kms the car suddenly stopped and the same was brought to the service centre of opposite party No.2. The case of the complainant is that the car was suffering from manufacturing defect but no expert evidence to prove the same has been produced on record by the complainant. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Chandeshwar Kumar Vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co.Ltd. and another 2007(1) CLT page 343 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para 3 of the orders as follows:-
“We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the material on record. Firstly, there is no expert opinion on record as to whether the vehicle has any manufacturing defect.In fact State Commission has gone on to record that the petty repairs carried out by the complainant by paying negligible amounts on filters, gear lever, radiator, engine oil, steering etc. worth Rs. 5 and other another expenditure amounting to Rs. 40 which in any case shall not help the complainant to prove the case/allegation of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect. No additional material or evidence has been brought before us to prove this allegation, of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect, in the absence of which, like State Commission, we are of the view that the appellant/complainant has failed to prove his case and the appeal as well as complainant has no legs to stand on its own.”
12. However, opposite party in goodwill gesture on the representation of the complainant has approved the relief to the tune of Rs. 2,07,791/- i.e. for the change of fuel system and the remaining amount for various parts which were out of warranty to the tune of Rs. 53061/- was disapproved which the complainant has given from his own pocket. It stands proved on record that the vehicle was out of warranty and the complainant has failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect, as such the opposite parties are not entitled to bear the expenses incurred on the replacement of some parts which were out of warranty.
13. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
