COMPLAINT FILED: 29.05.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 05th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1212/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> M/s. SLS Power Ltd.,<br /> Ashok Nagar,<br /> Navalak Gardens,<br /> Nellore – 524 002.<br /> Andhra Pradesh,<br /> By its Managing Director<br /> Sri. V. Chenchaiah.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (V. Lakshminarayana)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES <br /> <br /> 1. The Managing Director,<br /> Skoda Auto India Private Limited,<br /> Plot No. A-1/1, Shendra,<br /> Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC,<br /> Aurangabad – 431 201<br /> Maharashtra.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The General Manager,<br /> TAFE ACCESS LIMITED,<br /> Authorised Dealers of Skoda <br /> Auto India,<br /> No. 53, St. Mark’s Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Chetana)<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Works Manager,<br /> TAFE ACCESS LIMITED,<br /> Barani Industrial Estate,<br /> No. 919, Garvepalya,<br /> Chik Begur Road,<br /> Off Hosur Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 068.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to replace the defective vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle Rs.15,43,100/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant being impressed with the performance of the Skoda Car manufactured by OP.1, thought of purchasing the same from its dealer OP.2 and OP.3 is the authorized service centre for the said vehicle. Complainant purchased the said vehicle for the use of their Managing Director by paying Rs.15,43,100/- it was delivered to the complainant on 29.09.2006. But from day one complainant started experiencing the defect with regard to air bags. Immediately complainant brought the said fact to the notice of OP.2 and 3, then left the vehicle for repairs on 08.01.2007. The same problem continues right up to 11.10.2007 inspite of the fact complainant left the said vehicle with OP.3 not once but for 8 to 10 times for repairs pointing out with the defect in the air bag system, A.C. system, etc. Though OP attended to the said defects, the problem was little minimized but not cured. OP is unable to detect the defect. Though OP replaced the seat due to the defective wiring after the replacement of the original seat the same problem continued. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to attend to the defects, went in futile. Most of the time vehicle was lying with OP.3 for repairs. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to hire the taxi for the convenience of their Managing Director by spending huge amount. There is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Complainant even got issued the legal notice, there was no response. Thus complainant felt they are duped by the OP’s. Though complainant invested the hard earned money to the tune of nearly Rs.15,00,000/-, but they are unable to reap the fruits of their investment because of the inherent defective vehicle supplied by the OP’s. Thus suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances complainant is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission OP.1 filed their version. The sum and substance of the defence set out by the OP’s is that complainant purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose, hence the complainant cannot claim himself as a ‘Consumer’. Complainant out of his own free will and volition, chose to purchase the said vehicle Skoda Laura. Complainant used the said vehicle from the date of delivery till 08.01.2007 nearly for 4 months without any complaint. So the allegation of the complainant that on the very next day of the delivery of the said vehicle he noticed defect in air bag system is utterly false. As and when complainant brought the said vehicle with some defects within warranty period it was attended to. The air bag system defect was due to loose connection of some wires, that is why that original seat was removed, it was replaced with substitute and after attending to the defect in the wiring it was again replaced. Of course OP took some time to attend to the said wiring due to non-availability of some spare parts. Soon after it secured the spare parts, it attended to the said defect and original seat was replaced. It is in a prefect condition. Complainant was asked to take delivery of the said vehicle repeatedly, but he did not turn up. Ultimately he took delivery of the said vehicle on 04.04.2008. The allegations of the complainant that the said vehicle had inherent manufacturing defect is false. The other allegations made in the complaint are baseless. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service muchless unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced their documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Skoda Car manufactured by OP.1 through its dealer OP.2 on 29.09.2006 for a valid consideration of Rs.15,43,100/-. OP.3 is the authorized service station. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that they purchased the said vehicle for the use of their Managing Director. The contention of the OP that the said vehicle is purchased for commercial use on the face of it appears to be baseless. We do not find force in the said defence. Now it is contended by complainant that from day one they noticed some defect in air bag system and it was brought to the notice of OP immediately. Though the said defect was attended temporarily, OP is unable to detect the defect and cure the same. Ultimately complainant was forced to leave the said vehicle with some complaints for repairs at OP.3 on 08.01.2007 that is nearly after 4 months from the date of taking delivery. It is further contended by the complainant that the said defects continued right up to 11.10.2007.<br /> <br /> 7. As and when complainant took the said vehicle with certain defects to the OP.3, the job card was issued by OP.3. Those job cards are produced. On the perusal of the records it is not once but nearly for 8 - 10 times complainant took the said vehicle for the repairs to OP.3 and most of the time there is a complaint with regard to the air bag system, A.C. system. The contents of the said work job card issued by the OP are not at dispute. So on the perusal of the said job cards, it can be made out that there is an inherent manufacturing defect with regard to the air bag system, A.C. system, etc. Though OP attended to the said defects, but the said defect was only minimized it was not completely cured. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above referred undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is the quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that, complainant out of his own free will and volition, chose to purchase a Skoda Laura. Complainant invested his huge amount of more than Rs.15,00,000/- he has hardly used it for 4 months. Being fed up with the said defect he left the said vehicle with the OP.3 on 08.01.2007 and it continued right up to 11.10.2007 in one or the other way the complainant’s vehicle is left at OP.3 service station. So complainant is unable to use the said car for the purpose for which it has purchased by investing huge amount in lakhs. Naturally complainant must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. When this costly car was not available at the disposal of the Managing Director, naturally complainant must have hired some other vehicle for the official use. That act of complainant cannot be termed as a commercial transaction or car purchased for commercial use. <br /> <br /> 9. OP admits the fact that there is a loose connection in the couplers in the wiring harness below the seat. When OP collects lakhs of rupees with respect to the said modern highly sophisticated automized car, it would have been fair on the part to deliver the vehicle without any such kind of defects. The said defects is noticed within few months. OP changed the said seat so as to attend to the said defective wiring and replaced it with a stand by seat. Complainant used the vehicle for few days as the defects is minimized. Thereafter it appears when OP replaced the said original seat and took out the stand by seat, the same defect with air bag system continued. Complainant being fed up with the inherent defect in the said vehicle, naturally refused to take delivery of the same. Then on insistence complainant did take delivery of the said vehicle on 04.04.2008, but on the very next day he left the said vehicle i.e. on 05.04.2008 at the OP.3 garage again with the same defect with air bag system as pointed out on earlier occasion. The job card issued by the OP to that effect is produced. There is a substantial proof with regard to the defect in the said air bag system. <br /> <br /> 10. On going through the pleadings, the relevant documents produced by the litigating parties and evidence lead, we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. We have already observed that there is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. Complainant invested the huge amount in lakhs to purchase the defect free modern vehicle, unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. <br /> <br /> 11. OP having retained the said huge amount, failed to deliver defect free vehicle to the complainant, thereby accrued the wrongful gain to itself and caused the wrongful loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. In the interest of justice we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the relief in part as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the defective car with a brand new defect free Skoda Laura car and deliver it to the complainant. Failing in which OP is directed to refund Rs.15,43,100/- to the complainant and take back their defective vehicle. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 05th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />