Rohit Arora son of Joginder Pal Arora R/o 28, Baba Deep Singh Colony, near Spring Dales School, Fatehgarh Churian Road, Amritsar.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star, Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad.<br /> 2. Krishna Auto Sales, Authorised Dealer of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. , Jalandhar - Phagwara Road, Opposite Haveli Restaurent V.P.O. Khazurla, District Kapurthala.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K. Sharma President.<br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal, Member.<br /> Present : Sh.Gagandeep counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.Aftab Singh Bakshi counsel for opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT ( SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date ha been filed by the complainant Rohit Arora against opposite parties i.e. Skoda auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Auto Sales authorised dealer of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. seeking direction against the opposite parties for replacing the defective Skoda Octavia Rider 1.9 TDI car having manufacturing defects or in alternative to pay back the entire sale consideration of Rs.11,08,500/- alongwith interest and monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased one Skoda Octavia Rider 1.9 TDI' car from opposite party No.2 authorised dealer of opposite party No.1 Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. for sale consideration of Rs.11,08,500/- and the car was delivered on 30.11.2005 under the warranty period of 24 months from the date of its purchase . It is further alleged that said vehicle started giving trouble within few days of its purchase. He noticed deficiency in the car i.e. pick up of the car was very low from the very beginning and right from the purchase of the vehicle there was problem of horn and lights of the car and it was giving juge noise during motion. He made several complaints to the opposite parties but no satisfactory result came out. The vehicle started giving too much trouble as there was often breakdown on the road resulting into too much inconvenience suffered to the complainant. It i further averred that he handed over the vehicle after coverage of 5400 KM for checking and repair but the same was given back to him without repairs and troubles remained the same. He again visited opposite party NO.2 on 16/5/2006 when the mileage of the car was 11.807 KM. He was not satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite party and the car was giving trouble from the date of its purchase. It is further alleged that on 28/6/2007 there was again breakdown of the vehicle and opposite party No.2 was intimated about it but opposite party No.2 refused to render services to him. He had to tow the car to third Agency after paying Rs.5000/-. Opposite party No.2 informed him that there was failure of TURBO which costs Rs.1,10,000/- apart from all labour and fitting charges. The car was within warranty period and opposite party No.2 told him that TURBO is not available with opposite party NO.2 . He had to purchase the TURBO from outside and same was fitted by opposite party No.2 on payment of Rs.4692/- as fitting charges. The car was delivered with running mileage of 40,200 KM on 28/6/2007 which was delivered to him on 25/7/2007. It is further alleged that there was again breakdown at G.T. Road, near New Amritsar, District Amritsar and he informed opposite party No.2 and requested to send service Executive but opposite party nO.2 refused to take the car. He had to pay Rs.5000/- in order to tow the car to the workshop of opposite party No.2. The manager of opposite party No.2 informed him that engine of the car had failed and it has to be changed and demanded Rs.4,30,000/-. Since the car was within warranty period and he had already spent a lot on it but no action was taken by the opposite party despite repeated requests. It is therefore, alleged that both opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service on account of inherent manufacturing defects in the car for which he is entitled to its replacement or in alternative refund of price of the vehicle. He has also been suffering loss day by day as the car is not in working condition and same is lying with the opposite party.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. The factum of purchase of Skoda Octavia car by the complainant from opposite party No.2 for sale consideration of Rs.11,08,500/- is not disputed by the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that complainant himself is guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the warranty card and car manual as he failed to get two free services upto one year period when the car had travelled upto 15000 KMs. Ifthe car had given any trouble, complainant could have brought the car to the garage to get the defects removed.. It is admitted that opposite parties No.1 and 2 refused to replace the car/engine for the reason that complainant had failed to get the car serviced regularly from any authorized agencies at scheduled intervals as per instructions in the Skoda car manual and that he he had been getting the car serviced from unauthorised agencies and further that complainant failed to replace the intercooler as advised resulting into failure of turbo. He p urchased the turbo from open market which was not genuine and was spurious and fake which could have caused the engine to breakdown..It is denied that he ever brought the car to the workshop of opposite parties within scheduled time period for its service . It is further pleaded that car gave trouble free service even for the next thirteen months when the car travelled upto distance of 57,359 KMs and it was brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2 for second free service only on 27/562007. It was noticed by the engineer of opposite party No.2 that that all filters in the car were duplicate and spurious which were not genuine Skoda parts and as such he had breached the warranty condition with unauthorized fitments and unauthorized repairs.. It was also advised on the foot of the job card that intercooler needs to be replaced but the complainant refused to get it replaced at his own risk despite warning of the service advisor that it could cause problem to the turbo in future. It is further pleaded that complainant purchased turbo from open market from unauthorised agency and approached opposite party No.2 for fitting the same and the work was done on payment of labour charges. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties nor there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Complainant himself was responsible for his callous dealing and by mishandling the vehicle<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence warranty card Ex.R3 and also filed Annexure 1 and 2 alongwith written statement.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record.. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that frequent break down of the expensive Skoda car after its immediate purchase on account of low pick-up and problem of horns and lights of the car and huge noise during the motion within warranty period for manifestation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He further urged that persistent failure of the opposite parties i.e. manufacturer and the authorized dealer to render services to remove the troubles within warranty period amounts to woeful deficiency in service for which he is entitled to the replacement of the defective vehicle or in alternative price thereof. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has counter argued that complainant was himself guilty of violation of warranty conditions contained in the warranty card Ex.R3 as per job cards on account of his persistent failure to get his car serviced from the workshop of opposite parties or any authorized workhop of Skoda Company within time schedule and further aggravated by use of spurious and fake parts from unauthorized dealer in the vehicle itself. He further urged that failure of the complainant to produce any expert evidence of Automobile engineer to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle and callous handling of the vehicle dis-entitles im to any relief of replacement of the car much less to speak of any price of the car or monetary compensation.. <br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties . We do not find any merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. From the analysis of pleadings of the parties and documents placed by them in support of their respective contentions, no doubt, complainant has articulated his grievances about inherent manufacturing defects in the new white colour Skoda Octavia Rider 1.9 TRI car purchased worth Rs.11,08,500/- on 30/11/2005 on account of its frequent break down. He alleged in <br /> para 3 of the complaint that vehicle was handed over after coverage of 5400 KMs for checking and repair but the vehicle was given back to him without repairing the same and troubles remained the same which version has been stoutly denied by the opposite parties.. There is no document or even the complaint of the complainant for service of the vehicle or any such complaint or trouble in the vehicle after coverage of 5400 KMs mileage. On the other hand we find that vehicle was brought for free service to the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 16/5/06 as per job card Annexure 1 after coverage of 11807 KMs mileage and there was no complaint, whatsoever, about any trouble of break down of the vehicle. The second time complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 27.6.07 when th vehicle had covered 57359 Kms mileage. There is conflicting version in para-4 of the complaint about break down of the vehicle on 28/6/07 when the opposite party NO.2 had allegedly refused to provide service to the complainant and the complainant had to tow the car to its workshop. Serice engineer has clearly made observations that filters used in the vehicle by the complainant were spurious and fake and intercooler needs to be replaced but the customer refused to replace the same at his own risk. There is also affidavit of service adviser Amandeep Ex.RW1 of opposite party No.2 to the effect that he had handled Skoda motor cars for the last two years. Complainant brought Skoda car on 27/8/07 to the workshop of opposite party No.2 and did the running repairs mentioned in the job card. He found that all filters in the car were duplicate and spurious and they were not genuine Skoda parts which showed that car had been got serviced from some unauthorized service station. He also noticed that intercooler needed to be replaced because of lack of service on regular intervals as per instructions in the Skoda car manual. He advised the complainant to get it replaced but he refused to do so at his own risk. He also made note on the job card in this respect. He further told complainant that it could result into failure of turbo but the complainant did not pay any heed and took the delivery of the car.. He further stated that car broke down because of turbo failure and was brought to the garage. They referred the matter to opposite party No.1 because they alone have got the spare parts such as turbo. The Company refused to replace the turbo free of cost but on second reference they agreed to compensate 25% cost but the complainant purchased turbo of a cheaper quality which was spurious and duplicate. Opposite party No.2 for opening and fitting the turbo charged labour charges. The car engine broke down and it was brought to the garage but the opposite party refused to replace the engine because of violation of warranty condition and negligent handling of the vehicle by the complainant and lack of timely and proper maintenance from an authorized garage. Surprisingly complainant had not rebutted the defence version in para 3 of the written statement in his affidavit about irregular service of the car from the workshop of opposite party NO.2 within the time schedule as per terms and conditions of the warranty from the authorized service station of Skoda Company and use of spurious parts in the vehicle by the complainant from open market and further important part i.e. turbo, though opposite party agreed to compensate complainant upto 25% of price of the turbo on the bare goodwill gesture.<br /> 8. There is specific condition in the warranty card Ex.R3 that requirement for warranting repairs free of charge is that the service inspections and repairs during the warranty period have been carried out by an authorized Skoda dealer. It is further made explicit that warranty claims are void if damage of the vehicle has been caused by parts an accessories not approved by the manufacturer Skoda Auto or by failure to observe maintenance and repair instructions. However, the claims under the terms of warranty cannot be made in respect of use of spare parts and accessories not supplied by Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.. It is, therefore, evident as per admission of the complainant himself that he committed breach of terms and condtions of the warranty when he failed to bring his vehicle i.e. Skoda car for regular service within scheduled period as per requirement in the Skoda car manual and usage of spurious and fake parts i.e. filters and turbo purchased from some unauthorised agency from the open market resulting into break down of the car engine and thus displayed his own callous handling of the vehicle in negligent manner. <br /> There is consistent defence version of Vijay Pass Prop. of Krishna Auto Sales opposite party No.2 that complainant failed to observe warranty condition regarding the scheduled period for service as the complainant brought the car to the workshop of opposite party NO.2 first time on 16/5/06 when the car had travelled 11807 Kms mileage whereas service was due on audiometer reading of 7500 Kms. Admittedly there was no complaint made by the complainant regarding any trouble. It is further stated by the opposite party that car gave free trouble service even for next thirteen months and thereafter car travelled upto distance of 57359 Kms and service engineer also noted fake filters used in the car and note of warning was also given in the job card but the complainant refused to get intercooler replaced resulting into damage to the turbo. Complainant had alo committed mistake by purchase of turbo from open market despite warning of the service engineer as it could damage the engine and it did result into extensive damage of the engine. There is also affidavit of Satya Srinivas AGM of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. to the same effect that third agency tampered with the vehicle as per the finding of the service engineer that fake filters were used resulting into break down of the car and failure of the turbo because of failure of the complainant to replace the intercooler as advised by the service engineer. We do not find any justification in the allegation of the complainant regarding any inherent manufacturing defect in the car so as to warrant for replacement of the car or refund of price when the vehicle had itself run upto 57359 Kms mileage without any demur of the complainant about persistent break down of the vehicle though later on his own acts of callous handling of the vehicle and use of spurious and fake parts in the vehicle led to ultimate break down in the engine. He has failed to produce any evidence to rebut overwhelming evidence of the opposite parties about his own violation of terms and conditions of the warranty and negligent handling of the vehicle and further callous lack of timely and proper maintenance of the car from authorized dealer of Skoda Auto Company. Learned counsel for the complainant has, no doubt, referred to case reported as Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. vs. Lachia Setty AIR 2008 670 (NC) to buttress his contention for replacement of defective Skoda car but present case stand on different footing with the facts in the cited case wherein complainant frequently complained to dealer about defects in clutch system and gear box in transmission system and vehicle was taken to the workshop of the dealer time and again for repair and the purchaser had not given satisfactory report at any point of time after repair of the car and car was surrendered within three months of its purchase as there was no improvement. Here in the instant case, we find reverse picture of dismal role on the part of complainant himself in maintenance of expensive Skoda car in violation of warranty condition and his callous negligent handling of the vehicle. He has also failed to produce expert evidence of automobile engineer to prove manufacturing defects in the engine so as to warrant for its replacement within warranty period. Since opposite party Skoda Company has offered 25% discount in the parts from authorized dealer, we direct that in the event of vehicle Skoda car being brought to the workshop of opposite party No.2, they would provide 25% discount on the purchased price of the spare parts consistent with goodwill gesture towards the customer.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we do not see any merit in this complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mitttal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 17.4.2008 Member President.<br />