Date of Filing:14.08.2008<br /> Date of Order:06.05.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 06TH DAY OF MAY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1784 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> M/s LGA Crushers,<br /> Marathahalli,<br /> Sy. No.9/1, 9/2,<br /> Kannur Grama Panchayath,<br /> Bangalore-40,<br /> Represented by its partner,<br /> Sri. Narendra Balaji. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Plot No.A-1-1, Shendra,<br /> Five Star Industrial Area, <br /> MIDC, Aurangabad-431 201.<br /> <br /> 2. M/s Tafe Access Ltd.,<br /> Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> No.919, Garve Palya,<br /> Chikkabegur Road,<br /> Bangalore 560 046. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties fro replacement of the car or cost. <br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant was booked two Skoda Cars Laura Elegance one having Engine No.203072 Chasis No. 150725 and another having registration No.KA-53-M-7009. The complainant was paid insurance premium amount to the above said cars. The opposite parties due to negligence sold one allotted Skoda Car Laura Elegance having Engine No. 203072 Chassis No. 150725 to third party and opposite party allotted to the complainant a different Skoda Car Laura Elegance having Engine No. BJB 202607 Chasis No. TMBBSC 1Z 97A1050937 with registration No. KA-53-M-6998. In the mean time the opposite party had given a letter to the Tata AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., to change the Engine number and Chassis number in the policy. The alternative given to the complainant is defective. Within few months the engine speed of the vehicle drastically reduced and there was no pick up. The complainant informed same to the opposite party and the opposite party said that the TURBO has failed due to defective manufacturing and the same could be rectified. The complainant tried to get it replaced the parts through authorised service center, even after the repair, the complainant facing the similar problems. The car stops suddenly with lot of jerking and the entire electric system goes dead for few minutes then the car move after some time, it is not sure where the car will stop. When the vehicle is on the move, besides the oil tank is full the indicator shows that there is an oil level low. The complainant was not able to change the second gear smoothly. In this regard the complainant made several correspondences. On 22/05/2008 and 29/05/2008 the complainant issued legal notice to the General Manager, Skoda Auto India. But the General Manager has given unsuitable reply through mail. Thus the complainant was facing immense hardship and spending money by engaging the private taxies. Due to manufacturing defect the car cannot become a road worthy and the same has to be replaced. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties put in appearance through Advocate and defence version filed stating that the complainant had booked two Skoda Laura Elegance Cars one have Engine No.203072 Chassis No. 150725 and another having registration No. KA-53-M-7009. The complainant had paid insurance premium amount for both the cars. It is not true that the opposite parties due to negligence sold one of the allotted Skoda Car having Engine No.203072 Chassis No.150725 to some third party including complainant, as there was a delay in procuring the approval for this car at pre delivery inspection. This was done only to avoid delay and to protect the interest of the complainant. A different car was allotted to the complainant only to ensure that the complainant is provided with the car which is free from any defect and that which has been approved at the pre delivery inspection. Skoda Laura Elegance Car having Engine No.BJB 202607 Chassis No.TMBBSC 1Z 97A1050937 with registration No.KA-53-M-6989 was allotted to the complainant. As was required, the opposite party No.2 intimated the change in the Engine number and Chassis number to the insurance company to ensure that the change is reflected in the policy and complainant is not put to any difficulty. It is false that the alternative car allotted was defective or that within few months the engine speed of the vehicle reduced drastically or that there was no pick up. It is false that the car stops suddenly with lot of jerk and the entire electric system went dead for few months. It is wrongly alleged by the complainant that there was a deficiency of service and that the car had a manufacturing defect. The complainant has been making unreasonable demand to replace the car which is beyond the terms and conditions of the owner manual adopted by the complainant. The complainant has collected the car and has stated that he will run the car for few days before giving a satisfaction note. The complainant has purchased the car for commercial purposes and the complainant is not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. For all these reasons stated above, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidences of both the parties are filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and tension? If so what would be the quantum of amount?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of car or refund of the cost of the car?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased Skoda Laura Elegance Car bearing registration No.KA-53 M-6989 from the opposite party No.1 who is a dealer and opposite party No.2 is a company. The complainant submitted that the vehicle is defective in nature and he tried to get it replaced the parts through authorised service center, even after repairs he is facing the same problem. The car stops suddenly with lot of jerking and the entire electric system goes dead for few minutes. He had visited the service station several times, but they are not able to solve the problem. Changing of second gear smoothly is not possible. When the vehicle is on the move, besides the oil tank is full, the indicator shows there is an oil level low. The complainant has made correspondence with the opposite parties. The period of warrantee is still subsisting. The complainant has produced warrantee card. The complainant has written a letter to opposite party No.2 on 26/05/2008 informing all the problems. On 29/05/2008 the complainant has written another letter to the General Manager, Skoda Auto India. The opposite party No.2 has sent e-mail to the complainant on 02/06/02008 stating that the vehicle is being attended for the specific problem and the service engineer is cooperating with their dealership, problem with the vehicle has been diagnosed and necessary rectification is being carried out as per standards and in the said letter it is stated that job work is in progress, once the vehicle is made roadworthy all parameters of the vehicle will be checked once again. So by this letter it is very clear that the vehicle has problem and the new vehicle purchased by the complainant is not free from defects. Since the opposite party No.2 admitted in the letter that vehicle has been diagnosed and necessary rectification is being carried out. Opposite party No.2 again addressed a letter on 03/06/2008 to the complainant stating that complainant being an esteemed customer and he did not have any apprehension about the problems in future and vehicle is shielded with applicable warrantee conditions. The opposite party No.2 expressed regret for defects and inconvenience experienced by the complainant. The complainant had written mail on 01/06/2008 complaining the problems with the vehicle. The complainant got issued legal notice through his Advocate Sri. K.N. Puttegowda to the opposite parties. The copy of legal notice is produced. Postal acknowledgement has been produced to show that notice has been served on the opposite parties. The complainant has produced three work shops job cards. As per the defence version also, it is admitted that the car had been brought to opposite party No.2 for few occasions in the year 2007 and early2008 with minor problems and opposite party admitted that the said problems were rectified. It is also admitted by the opposite party No.2 in the defence version necessary repairs have been carried out. In the defence version the opposite party admitted that complainant had issued legal notice. By the defence version also it is clear that there was problem with the car the car was giving trouble and not running smoothly as per the standard and repairs carried out and replacement of some parts were made. It is the defence of the opposite party that the complainant is making unreasonable demand of replacement of car which is beyond the terms and conditions of owner manual. The learned Advocate for the opposite party while arguing the case submitted that even now also the opposite parties ready and willing to attend the problems with car and set the things right. The opposite parties are also willing to cooperate with the complainant in rectifying any defects which are found in the car. The opposite parties submitted that as a good gesture to the customer they are always ready and willing to attend any defects or problems with the vehicle as per the warrantee manual. As per the warrantee manual two year warrantees is given and one year warrantee is given for Skoda genuine parts and accessories. The Skoda Auto India warrants that the vehicle is free of defects based on manufacture workmen ship and used original material. But in this case the vehicle found not free of defects within the period of two years from the date of purchase. Therefore, the warrantee given by the company is not guaranteed. It is the duty and commitment of the opposite parties to supply defect free vehicle to the customers. Skoda Auto India is a famous and reputed company it should see that its products are free from any kind of defects and problems. But unfortunately in this case right from the purchase of brand new car the complainant faced trouble and problems with the vehicle and he had intimated several times to the opposite parties of the problems faced by him and three work shops job cards have been produced and correspondences have been produced. All these documents clearly established that the vehicle had given mental tension, inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. It is really very shocking and matter of mental tension for the owner who had purchased new car, if the car goes on giving trouble the opposite party no doubt attended the problem and replacement had taken place of the some parts of the vehicle. But he has suffered a lot of mental tension and agony. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case it is a fit case to grant compensation to the complainant for mental tension and agony though not replacement of car. The argument of learned counsel for the opposite parties that asking replacement of car at this juncture is unreasonable and unjustified deserves to be accepted. But however on the facts and circumstances of the case and by looking to all the documents it is a good case to grant a reasonable amount of compensation to the complainant for mental tension and agony suffered. I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony will meet the ends of justice in this case. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to give Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the above amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realisation. <br /> 7. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings from the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 6TH DAY OF MAY-2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br />