Haryana

StateCommission

A/733/2016

NARAIN SERVICE STATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

SKODA AUTO INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT ARORA

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

                            First Appeal No  :   641 & 733 of 2016

                             Date of Institution:  13.07.2016 & 09.08.2016

                            Date of Decision:   03.11.2016

 

 

Appeal No.641 of 2016

 

1.      Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Add: Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-431201, Maharashtra through its Directors.

 

2.      Mr. Sudhir Rao, Senior Officer of Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Add: Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-4301201, Maharashtra.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3

Versus

 

1.      M/s Narain Services Station, through its partner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhalla, Add-16/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad also at House No.1417, Sector 19, Faridabad.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Nawab Motors Private Limited through its Director/Manager Office Address cum Workshop W-9, Sector 11, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

Appeal No.733 of 2016

 

 

M/s Narain Services Station, through its partner Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhalla, Add-16/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad also at House No.1417, Sector 19, Faridabad.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Add: Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-431201, Maharashtra through its Directors.

 

2.      Nawab Motors Private Limited through its Director/Manager Office Address cum Workshop W-9, Sector 11, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

 

2.      Mr. Sudhir Rao, Senior Officer of Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Add: Plot No.A-1/1, Shendra, Five Star Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurangabad-4301201, Maharashtra.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                    

 

Present:     Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for Skoda Auto India

                   Private Limited and Sudhir Rao-opposite parties No.1

                   & 3

                   Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for M/s Narain Service Station-complainant.

                   Service of Nawab Motors Private Limited-opposite party No.2 dispensed with vide order dated August 10^th, 2016

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          M/s Narain Services Station (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’) purchased a car Skoda Superb make bearing registration No.HR51AK-0094 on September 22^nd, 2010 from Arshia Motors, Mathura Road, Faridabad.  A few defects were noticed in the car.  The complainant brought the car to Nawab Motors Private Limited-opposite party No.2-authorized dealer of Skoda Auto India Private Limited.  The authorized dealer changed a few parts of the car but the complainant was not satisfied.  The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, ‘District Forum’).

2.      The District Forum vide impugned order dated May 16^th, 2016 directed the Skoda Auto India Private Limited and Nawab Motors Private Limited-opposite parties to replace the engine of the car, handover the car in a roadworthy condition free of cost; Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.      Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, complainant and Skoda Auto India Private Limited filed appeals bearing No.733 and 641 of 2016 respectively. 

4.      Skoda Auto India Private Limited has challenged the order on the ground that since it had repaired the car, so, the District Forum wrongly directed it to change the engine of the car. The complainant has impugned the order alleging that instead of replacing the engine, District Forum should have directed the Skoda Auto India Private Limited to replace the car or refund its price.

5.      Counsel for the parties have been heard.  Record over the file has been perused.

6.      Job Card (Annexure L) shows that thirty one parts of the car were changed under warranty by Arshia Motors, authorized dealer of Skoda Auto India Private Limited.  Inspite of that, the defects could not be removed as is evident from a letter (Annexure E) written to the complainant by the General Manager, Nawab Motors Private Limited c/o Skoda Auto India Private Limited that 100% cost of the cylinder head has been approved under goodwill of the complainant of course mentioning that cost of other engine parts and labour was to be borne by the complainant.  In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, it can easily be said that defects were not removed.  In this situation, the replacement of the engine would suffice the purpose.  There was no justification to replace the car or refund its price as prayed by the complainant. Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference and both the appeals are dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.641 of 2016 be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

8.      Certified copy of this order be placed in the file of Appeal No.733 of 2016.

 

 

Announced 03.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K