Date of Filing :13.12.2018
Date of Disposal:28.10.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 28.10.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.2063/2018
M/s Singhal Granites Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. office at: No.809,
Barton Centre,
No.84, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru 560001
Rep. by its Director
Mr Sourabh Agarwal
(By M/s Sreevasta Associates) Appellant
-Versus-
1. Skoda Auto Vokswagen India Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office at: A-1/1,
MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area,
Shendra,
Aurangabad-431201
Rep. by its Managing Director
2. The Managing Director
Skoda Auto Vokswagen India Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office, A-1/1, MIDC,
Five Star Industrial Area,
Shendra, Aurangabad 431201
(Cause title of OP 1 and 2 amended
as per order dated 13.06.2022)
3. Vinayak Cars Pvt. Ltd.
No.50/2, Revack Building (Skoda),
T.C.Palya Cross,
Bangalore-560049.
4. Mr Suresh Bafna
Managing Director,
Vinayak Cars Pvt. Ltd.,
No.50/2, Revack Building (Skoda),
T.C.Palya Cross,
Bengaluru-560049.
5. Mr Praveen Patil
General Manager,
Vinayak Cars Pvt. Ltd.,
50/2, Revack Building (Skoda),
T.C.Palya Cross,
Bengaluru-560049.
6. Mr Vishwanath
Vinayak Cars Pvt. Ltd.,
No.50/2, Revack Building (Skoda),
T.C.Palya Cross,
Bengaluru-560049.
7. Mr Prasad
Vinayak Cars Pvt. Ltd.
No.50/2, Revack Building (Skoda),
T.C.Palya Cross,
Bengaluru-560049. Respondents
(By Mrs Smitha N Advocate for R1 and R2)
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 29.12.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.617/2011 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and records of District Forum. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 29.12.2017 passed in CC No. 617/2011 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. Complainant had raised a consumer complaint on 28.03.2011 with a prayer against OPs 3 to 7 to repair the vehicle at their own cost and deliver the car in good & tend condition.
To pay the amount collected for servicing the car by misleading the complainant to an extent of Rs.1,45,095/-.
To pay Rs.10 lakhs as damages; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings and to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony suffered and expenses incurred for travelling.
In Para 3 of the Complaint, complainant has stated that he purchased a Skoda Superb registration No.DN-09C-2952 from Skoda dealership at Dadra-Nagarhaveli in his name at considerable costs. It was intended for his personal use who resides at Bangalore. He has presented himself in his complaint M/s Singhal Granites Private Limited represented by his Managing Director, Mr.Sourabh Agarwal. OPs 1 and 2 are manufacturer while OPs 3 to 5 and 6 & 7 relates to Vinayaka Cars Private Limited being authorised service station. OPs 1 & 2, OPs 3 & 4 are represented by learned counsels, while OPs 5 to 7 did not participate in the complaint proceedings. OPs1 to 4 have contested the complaint denying the allegation of the complainant that they have rendered deficiency in service and also denied complaint raised could not be entertained since complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act, 1986.
5. In view of rival contentions of the parties, District Forum held an enquiry by receiving materials from the respective parties held complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act, 1986 and held complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thereby dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.
6. It is this order is assailed in this Appeal contending the District Forum has erred in holding that complainant is not a consumer within definition of section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act 1986. The District Forum has erred in relying solely on the explanation provided by the OPs on the nature and working of the catalytic convertor without appreciating the complainant version. The OP3 in an attempt to deny liability and to hide the real issue provide an elaborate explanation of the workings of a catalytic converter, but fails to counter. The complainant has faced its claim on the presence of manufacturing defect precisely because OP3 repeatedly failed to accurately diagnose and resolve the problem of low pick up. The District Forum has failed to appreciate CC No.2302/2007 has no relation to the issue of low pick up and the said case was dismissed on the ground that electronic components were not covered under warranty. District Forum has failed to apply principles laid down in the cited decision and thereby committed grave error in dismissing the complaint.
7. Let us examine whether complainant comes within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986. In this complaint, complainant has presented himself as Managing Director of Singhal Granites Private Limited and he resided in Bengaluru City has bought the car manufactured by OPs 1 and 2 through their dealer for the personal use and thereby car was being regularly serviced at the OP No.3 service station, which in fact is not in dispute. The District Forum in Para 11 and 12 held - complainant placed citation they are not relevant to the facts and the complainant do not come within the purview of section 2 (1) (d) of CP Act 1986.
8. Learned counsel for Appellant placed decision in (2015) (2) SCC 669 of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case between Punjab University Vs Unit Trust of India and others, wherein held – ‘commercial purpose’, reiterated must be interpreted considering the facts and circumstances of each case - It includes inter alia any undertaking (business/project etc.,) with an object to make profit out of the said undertaking.
Further placed decision in (1995) 3 SCC 583 in the case between Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute wherein held in Para 21 - We must, therefore hold that -Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a ‘Commercial Purpose’ within the meaning of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ in section 2(d) of the Act is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Thus keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and in consideration of the facts averred in Para 3 and 4 having been purchased the vehicle manufactured by OPs 1 and 2 through their dealer was intended for the personal use has to be held comes within the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986. The findings of the District Forum that he does not come within the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986 has to be held unsustainable under law. Accordingly, such finding recoded by District Forum is liable to be set aside and is set aside.
9. Let us examine whether recording negative findings on the allegation of complainant against OP3 to 5 that they have rendered deficiency in service has to be examined, commencing from complaint averments, in Para 3 had stated complainant purchased ‘Skoda Superb’ from the Skoda dealership at Dadra-Nagarhaveli and when the car was being regularly serviced at the OPs service Station. However, he failed to make mention of the date of purchase of the car from OP3. In his complaint he has sought direction against OP3 to 7 and has not at all sought any relief against OPs 1 and 2. It has come in the enquiry, the District Forum has found car has been travelled more than 42,152 Kms in when brought for repair in the month of August 2010. As per invoice dated 24.04.2010, that Catalytic converter namely Diesel engine contains relatively high levels of particulate matter, consisting in large part of elemental carbon, Catalytic converter cannot clean up elemental carbon, though they do remove up to 90% of soluble organic fraction and it requires periodic regeneration to initiate combustion of the trapped sort and thereby reducing the exhaust back pressure. However, the complainant has not changed the catalytic converter and in such circumstances, the efficiency of the engine goes down it result the performance of the car. Complainant has placed Xerox copies of retail invoice dated 02.02.2010, perform invoice dated 01.04.2009, retail invoice dated 24.04.2010, 15.01.2010 for having paid Rs.9,609/-, Rs.24,991/- and Rs.24,104/- and got repaired the car. However, on 24.04.2010 it was recorded that catalytic converter needs to replace customer not approved. When the car was left with OP3 for service, OP3 failed to tune the engine properly as a result of which, there has been damaged to the catalytic converter wherefore OP3 ought to have replaced the Catalytic converter at free of cost on 06.07.2010, however, for the same problem, the car was brought to the OP3 service station and it was informed about the latest diagnosis that the radiator fan need attention. The car was again brought to OP3 on 07.08.2010 and since 10.08.2010 it has been with the OP3 and OP3 has raised bill of Rs.86,391/- towards cost for the water leakage work as mentioned in the invoice. Complainant alleged against OP3 without having the knowledge of the defect of the clear diagnose, what is the defect in the car has changed the catalytic converter by that time, the engine tune was to be required at the time of car was being serviced and OP3 has claimed the complainant a sum of Rs.66,788/- for replacement of the Catalytic converter. However, OP3 has categorically denied such allegation of the complainant about misuse of car or bad handling of bad maintenance in April 2010. It has also come in the enquiry, complainant did not approve for the replacement of Catalytic converter and he took back the car of ascertaining its road worthiness. In our view, District Forum has rightly found when the complainant refused to replace parts suggested by the OP3 service station that EGR valve, Catalytic converter and exhaust system pipe to be completely removed and re-fixed, for which OP3 service station needs consent of the complainant or his approval and as it is also found from enquiry, authorised dealer has no choice but, to charged for the repairs, replacement as the car is no longer covered under warranty. Though complainant has failed to make mention of the date of purchase of the car from OP3, enquiry reveals, it was purchased in the month of February 2010 and in our view with some object did not mentioned the date of purchase of the vehicle. However, enquiry also reveals that the complainant has used the car without facing any difficulty for more than 40,000/- plus kms and after repair he successfully used the vehicle for more than 2000 kms. On the contrary, complainant placed nothing on record to establish that service station in particular Ops 3 to 7 are badly handled the car which was brought for repair in April 2010.
10. It has also come in the enquiry that Complainant had also raised a consumer complaint in CC No.2302/2007 on the file of I Additional DCDRF against OPs alleging deficiency in service, delay in fixing certain electrical components. However, the said case came to be dismissed on the ground that electronic components were not covered under warranty. We agree that findings recorded in the said complaint case are not bindings and it cannot be said complaint herein is hit by the principles of res-judicata. It is to be noted herein complainant placed nothing on record to establish that OPs 3 to 7 have rendered deficiency in service on the alleged rendering deficiency of services. As already stated above, when complainant has failed to give his consent and approval for replacement of the Catalytic converter cannot be alleged against OPs that they have rendered deficiency in service. In such circumstances, contention of the complainant/Appellant that impugned order is badly erroneous is liable to be set aside could not be acceptable at all. Hence, we proceed to dismiss the Appeal with no order as to costs.
11. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
