Date of Filing : 27/11/2010
Date of Order : 31/10/2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 31st day of October 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 133/2010
Mr.Jude Koshy,
S/o.late.M.K.Koshy,
Aged about 36 years,
26 Benson Cross Road,
Benson Town,
Bangalore 560 046. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. Skoda Auto India Private Limited,
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its office at 1st Cross,
No.3,Lavelle Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
Rep. by its Director.
2. Skoda India Pvt. Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its office at A-1/1, MIDC,
Five Star Industrial Area,Shendra
Aurangabad 431201.
Maharashtra,
Rep. by its Director, Marketing & Sales
Thomas Kuehi.
3. TAFE Access Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its office at
No.53, St.Mark’s Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
Rep. by its Director. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a top end Skoda Laura L&K on 31.07.2008 from the company’s dealer in Bangalore. On 10.06.2009 at night while the complainant traveling with his wife in one of the main road was waterlogged and their car abruptly stopped after they had driven across the waterlogged patch. Immediately the complainant called the Bangalore helpline of OP 3 and was instructed to wait for 30 minutes and then try starting the car. The complainant followed the instructions and car started after 30 minutes and he drove to his residence.
3. The complainant further stated that on 11.06.2009, the complainant called Mr Narendra of OP 3 Company who had taken care of the first service, to inform about some white smoke coming out from the exhaust the previous night and he informed to bring the care for check up. After inspecting the care by the engineer, stated that the minimum bill would be Rs.80,000/- then took the service centre a good two hours for filling up the job card.
4. He further stated that on 20.06.2009, the complainant received a call from the Insurance Surveyor stating that ICICI Lombard would not recover this case they came to the conclusion without inspecting the vehicle of the dismantled engine. Dismantling of the engine was scheduled for 23.06.2009 at 9 p.m, which ends at 4 p.m. Engine block had sustained damage and the minimum cost was to be Rs.2,00,000/-. The inspection was took place half a month and the utter dismay of the complainant the day when the dismantling of the engine took place the surveyor was not present.
5. The complainant further submitted that he was informed by the helpline that the engine air intake was located at such a low and there was possibility of water entering in the engine, the optimal reaction is to switch off the engine and not to drive the car. The complainant brings this to the notice of the OP’s esteemed company and issued two years warranty. The complainant purchased the car on 31.07.2008 which is within the warranty period. The complainant has suffered mental torture, physical hardship due to the callous attitude of the OPs.
6. The complainant has sent a legal notice dated 22.07.2009 to the OPs but there was no reply, again on 07.11.2009 a fresh legal notice was sent, a letter dated 25.08.2009 was received by the complainant from OP 3 seeking for approval for commencement of repair of his car, and the complainant has sent a letter dated 27.08.2009 stating that notice was sent to OP 1 & 2, waiting for reply and he is not in a position to give any instruction. On 18.09.2009 again the complainant sent a letter to OP3 to go ahead to repair the car. OP 3 kept the car without stating any reason. After making several requests failed to get his car and issued a legal notice. OPs sent a mail stating that the car is ready and an escalated bill is Rs.4,00,000/-. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint seeking for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- per day with interest at 18% per annum and also pay Rs.8,00,000/- as mental agony and hardship, PAY Rs.4,02,053/- being the bill raised and other levies at Rs.1,00,000/- and pay cost of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.
7. OP 1 and 2 has filed version stating that the complainant purchased the car on 31.07.2008 from 3rd OP and he used the same for 9243 kms without any problem this shows that the care does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. On 10.06.2009 the complainant drove through a water logged area and same resulted in hydrostatic lock of the engine of the car thereby restricting the piston from completing its stroke, resulting in damage to the piston and other connected parts. Car stopped due to complainant driving through water logged area, solely a result of complainant’s negligent. Hence OP 1 and 2 prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
8. Arguments are heard. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced.
9. Point for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief ?
REASONS
10. It is an admitted case of the parties that OP1 and 2 are the manufacturers of Skoda Laura Car connecting of Skoda Laura L&K cars and OP3 their dealer and service centre. It is also admitted case that the complainant has purchased said branded car bearing No.KA-01-MK-40 from 3rd OP on 31.07.2008 and the said vehicle had warrantee for two years. As on 11.06.2009, the said car has run 9243 kms without any problem or defects.
11. It is also admitted that on 10.06.2009 in the rain, the complainant was driving the car, while it was raining, the road was water logged, on noticing many Maruti Zens, Santros and other cars were crossing. The complainant decided to cross as well in the water logged area and after driving in the water logged area the car stopped across the water logged patch. Even then the complainant got it started and moved and found white smoke coming and left the car in the work shop of OP3 on 11.06.2009. A Job card was opened by OP3 and on that day the odometer reading was at 9243 kms. Certain correspondences took place between the parties on 23.06.2009 between 11 AM and 4 PM. The engine was dismantled and it was found that the engine block had certain damages. The complainant did not come across for repair of the damaged vehicle. On 18.09.2009 the complainant wrote to the OP3. The relevant portion of the letter dated 18.09.2009 is:
“without prejudice to my rights and claims I am compelled to pay for the repairs currently and take my car back as it has been with you for 3 months”
Accordingly the OP had repaired the vehicle and submitted the bill for payment by writing a Retail Invoice on 17.11.2009 for Rs.4,02,053/- and demanded payment of the amount. The complainant had not paid the amount nor took the vehicle delivery and this complaint is filed. Now we have to see whether the repair charges claimed by the complainant will come within the preview of the warranty as contended by the complainant or it has tobe paid by the complainant and he has to take the vehicle back from the OP or whether it amounts to deficiency in service.
12. We are not concerned with the insurance of the vehicle since the insurance company that is ICICI Lombard General Insurance is not made as party to the proceeding nor a claim is made against the insurance policy No.3001/5475/7507/00/000. Hence we are not in a position to consider any of the allegations or any of the averments made with respect to the insurance company.
13. Here the complainant at para 3 of the complaint stated that:
“The complainant submits that he purchased a top end Skoda Laura L&K on 31.07.2008 from the company’s dealer in Bangalore on 10.06.2008 he and his wife were driving back home at night and it was also raining that evening. One of the main road on which they were traveling was waterlogged. On noticing that many Maruti Zens, Santros and other cars were crossing, they decided to cross as well. Consequently, their car abruptly stopped after they had driven across the waterlogged patch.”
He has also stated at para 8 as:
“Dismantling of the engine was scheduled for 23.06.2009 at 11 p.m. which ended at 4 p.m. it shall be noted here that the engine block had sustained damage and the minimum cost was estimated to be Rs.2,00,000/-. Expecially since the car was driven for long distances.”
He also stated at para 11 as:
“Driving the car can cause hydrolock, which can virtually destroy the engine, since the lubricants in the engine area cease to function and the running of the engine has the effect of various metal and mechanical parts being run without any lubrication, which will cause the destruction of the engine.”
These are the admissions of the complainant that is to say that the complainant drag the vehicle in the water logged area, the car stopped, he himself driven car into the workshop and the engine has been damaged. For his negligence the complainant cannot blame the OP and claim repair free of charge under the head warranty. If the complainant commits negligence, rashness and get the vehicle damaged, how the OPs are responsible for it? There is no answer.
14. The main grievance of the complainant is that when the car had stopped, he called the helpline, though they instructed him to wait for about 30 minutes and then to try to start the car, he started the car and drove and because of that the engine was damaged. Hence the OP is liable for it. This has been specifically denied by the OPs in the version. OP1 and 2 at para 5 has stated that:
“Admittedly the complainant drove through a water logged area and the same has resulted in hydrostatic lock of the engine of the Car i.e., the water has entered into the compression chamber obstructing the piston of the engine due to water accumulation, thereby restricting th piston from completing its stroke, resulting in damage to the piston and other connected parts. This results in soaking/saturation of Air filter at both ends, causing heavy incompressible pressure in combustion area resulting in the Car stopping. The car stopped due to complainant driving through water logged area, solely a result of complainant’s negligent. Such acts are not covered under warranty.”
At para 11 stated that:
“At the time of purchase of cars, the opposite parties inform all its customers regarding the specifications of the vehicles purchased by the customer. Also the owners manual & service schedule were handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase carries all the specifications of the car.”
At para 12 stated that:
“This opposite party submits that driving the car in water logged area resulting entering of water into the engine and same can cause severe damage to the engine components.”
At para 13 stated that:
“The user manual and warranty policy has been handed over to the complainant at the time of purchased of the car. The opposite parties submitted that the application of warranty are subject to the Warranty terms and conditions, it is needs of mentioned that the warranty is not applicable if the damages to the vehicle because of external factors or to inadequate care. Further it is clear that in the present case the damages to the engine are only because of water entrance into the engine and not because of any defect of engine.”
15. These are not challenged or denied by the complainant. The complainant was given the manual of the vehicle at the time of purchase of the vehicle on 31.07.2008 itself, which contain the details of the entire care about how it has to be driven, how it has to proceed. If the vehicle stops at a particular place, the complainant has to inform the concerned company and it has to be informed to the workshop. Here when the vehicle has stopped because of the negligence of the complainant in driving the vehicle in a water logged area, seeing other vehicle has driving through and when the vehicle stopped, he informed the helpline, waited for 30 minutes, instead of driving the vehicle to the workshop, he started the vehicle, moved the vehicle in the water logged area and got the vehicle damaged and because of this incident, the OP opened the engine in presence of the complainant. The complainant wanted the insurance company to pay or the OP to pay either under the insurance or under the warranty, as it did not materialize, he requested the OP to repair the vehicle and on repair of the vehicle he did not pay the money, nor took back the vehicle but has filed this complaint. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When the vehicle is damaged, it is an act of the negligence on the part of the complainant. There is no mechanical defect or manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
16. Further no person has come and stated that he has an expert in this field, he has inspected the vehicle in question and it is because of the manufacturing defect the vehicle has stopped and sustained damage. There is no expert opinion.
17. Even the complainant never says that because of manufacturing defect, the water raised to the engine. Under these circumstances, there is no justification to hold otherwise other than holding against the complainant. If the complainant has agreed, he can approach the insurance company if he is entitled. For which this order will not come into way. Hence we hold the above points and pass the following
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately for compliance.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31st day of October 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
I concur the above findings
MEMBER
