PER
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 34 and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that in the year 2010, the complainant intended to purchase a luxury car for himself and was inclined towards brands like BMW, Audi, Mercedes etc., however executives of opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized agency of O.P. No.1 succeeded in alluring the complainant to purchase "Volkswagen Pasaat" sedan model car. The executives of the O.P. No.2 gave a very rosy picture of product being a "class" in itself, having lots of features to offer safe and smooth drive with luxury comfort. The complainant for want of a luxury car of good style having good features, power and excellent engine and most significantly safe and smooth when driven, got convinced by the executives of opposite party No.2 on all the aforementioned aspects and purchased a premium luxury segment sedan car i.e. "Volkswagen Passat", from O.P. No.2 on 31.10.2010 for total sale consideration of Rs.19,18,750/- after availing loan from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. to the tune of Rs.9,76,750/-. Right from the second year from the date of purchase i.e. during the warranty period only, major faults and breakdowns started occurring due to manufacturing defects in the aforementioned car. It is also imperative to highlight that on mere running for 42606 kms, problems of coolant malfunctioning and fuel leakage from injection area started occurring for which the complainant had to take the car to the workshop on 20.01.2012. Just after five months from the date of last repair i.e. 20.1.2012, again on 03.07.2012 at 54935 kms, as per total mileage run, problems of exhaust malfunctioning and coolant leakage occurred. All these problems occurred during warranty period and the complainant had to send the aforementioned car time and again to the workshop. The repair of the aforesaid exhaust malfunctioning and coolant leakage took more than a month and the complainant was left with no conveyance to commute for daily routine necessities for the said period. Thereafter multiple problems again arose in the car and the complainant could only drove 30000 kms in next three years i.e. from the date of last repair till it was again sent to the workshop for multiple repairs on account of manufacturing defects on 10.04.2015. The car again remained in the workshop for about a month and was handed over to the complainant on 7.5.2015 and for the said repairs the complainant had to pay Rs. 32,857/-. To the utter discontent of the complainant, again on 12.11.2016 on mere running of another 15000 km from the date of last repair, various major breakdowns including clutch plates, flywheels, Internal and external AC combo packs, brake discs and various other faults took place in the car, for which again the complainant had to pay huge amount to the tune of Rs.1,29,444/- for the said repair work. Again on mere running of another 3000 km from the last date of repair, car was again sent to the workshop on 12.04.2017 for various major faults including LONG BLOCK which itself costed Rs.4,06,473/- and the authorized agency raised a total bill to the tune of Rs. 5,34,466/- for the said repairs on account of purely manufacturing defects. These repeated issues in the car not only caused huge monitory loss to the complainant but great hardship as well since the car remained in the workshop for more than a month. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the car after being repaired was again sent to the workshop on mere running of another 30000 km from the last date of repair and the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- for multiple repairs on 19.04.2019. Thereafter, again within a span of one week some malfunctioning defect took place on 25.04.2019 for which the car was again sent to the authorized workshop. Thereafter again, on 11.07.2019 i.e. three months from the last date of repair, multiple problems occurred and the entire gear box, clutch kit and various other parts were changed for which bill to the tune of Rs.2,64,259.17 was paid by the complainant from his hard-earned money. The complainant has been writing numerous e-mails since 2012 seeking redressal of major malfunctioning and defects in the engine and other components of car. However, instead of accommodating the complainant, the O.P. turned a deaf ear towards his genuine grievances. In one of the e-mails, the O.P. No.1 has stated that "As already intimated to you by our DSM Lakhwinder Singh, Internal Engine components are damaged and need to replace. As per technical department, its better to replace complete engine instead of damaged components as cost of both are approximately same". This fact clearly highlights that the quality of the engine is substandard and the O.Ps are indulged in deceptive trade practices in minting out huge sums of money from their customers in this regard. The running and repair history of the vehicle clearly shows despite the vehicle going to the workshop at repeated and regular intervals for repairs (which are certainly not running repairs) in addition to the regular servicing schedule, wherein the vehicle could not be made operational properly even once, in the absence of any accidental repair, such a scenario in never expected in any normal vehicle what to talk of such a luxury vehicle claimed by the company to be one of the best available quality and luxury vehicle, it clearly proves that there are certain manufacturing defects in the vehicle which could not be removed completely despite repeated repairs, and also the service quality available at the dealership of O.P. No.1 as well as the spare parts are not upto the mark even, for that reason the vehicle despite going to the workshop in addition to regular servicing regime, going for repeated repairs for one reason or the other, but is never running smoothly to the satisfaction of the complainant at any point of time, though the signing satisfactory notes after every visit to the workshop is more a formality that a fact. All these circumstances have resulted into the complainant losing confidence for the vehicle may give a luxury and smooth ride as was expected, as the same is giving a feeling of turning into a source of constant headache and curse for him. Under these facts and circumstances, the complainant was left with no other alternative but to send a legal notice dated 15.10.2019 to the O.Ps through his counsel with the direction to rectify the manufacturing defects prevailing in the said car. However, the O.Ps have not even bothered to send reply to the legal notice dated 15.10.2019 or address the genuine grievances of the complainant. The aforesaid vehicle was even inspected by an approved surveyor and loss assessor Engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra on 16.11.2019. The said expert after going through the complete record of the car, has opined vide report dated 18.11.2019 that "These repairs were not repairs but were due to some unusual defects in the vehicle. There is no mention of accidental repair on the repair invoices, but the repairs were due to defects by the owner to the workshop. All these defects mentioned above clearly shows that there were certain defects in the vehicle when it was sold, and these defects could not be removed despite many a time the vehicle being taken for repairs. These repair records many a times with repeated repair of the same fault clearly show quality workmanship in repair/servicing of the vehicle as well as substandard material used in the repair of defects reported at various intervals parts as the defects could not be removed in the first instance when the vehicle was taken to workshops for running repair/servicing and the major defects keep on appearing one after the other, all these defects are not expected in a luxury and premium vehicle as of Volkswagen Pasaat as the record shows the never gave smooth ride". The aforesaid acts of O.P. has not only caused grave prejudice to the complainant but has also caused mental harassment and monetary loss as well. From the perusal of the preceding para it is crystal clear that the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service for unfair trade practice and causing grave harassment to the complainant along with financial loss, making the complainant entitled for compensation for harassment, mental agony along with financial loss. There is continuous cause of action for filing the present complainant for the said deficient acts of the O.Ps. The complainant has not filled any such similar complainant before any other court of law having proper jurisdiction except for C.C. No.907 of 2019 titled as "Nardev Soni vs. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd." at Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh, which was withdrawn at preliminary stage due to certain defects in the complaint. Thus, the present dispute having not being adjudicated on merits, the instant complaint is maintainable. The complainant prayed the following reliefs:-
- Direct the O.Ps. to rectify the defects to make the vehicle run smooth and defect-free with fresh warranty as of new vehicle, and refund the repair bills so spent till now along with interest @ 18% p.a. till date of repayment; OR IN ALTERNATIVE
- Direct the O.Ps. to replace the vehicle with new one of the same value as on date with fresh warranty, and further pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the price of the vehicle from the date of purchase till date of replacement; OR IN ALTERNATIVE
- Direct the O.Ps. to refund the total amount of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.19,18,750/- and further pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the price of the vehicle from the date of purchase till date of repayment;
- Direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service & unfair trade practice causing mental & physical harassment to the complainant and for causing monitory loss to the complainant;
- Direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of litigation expenses; and
- Any other or consequential relief that this commission deems fit may be granted to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record Photostat copy of relevant extract of the loan agreement and cheque dated 30.10.2010 to the tune of Rs. 9,42,000/- Ex. C-1, Photostat copy of the various invoices of repairs issued by OP No.2 Ex. C-2, Photostat copy of the correspondence b/w the O.Ps and the complainant vide various emails Ex. C-3, Photostat copy of legal notice dated 15.10.2019 Ex. C-4, Photostat copy of the report dated 18.11.2019 Ex. C-5.
2 Notice of complaint issued to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has suppressed most material facts from this commission, so the present complaint is not legally maintainable. The present complaint is time barred as the car was purchased in the year 2010 and the complainant filed the present false and frivolous complaint before this Commission after a gap of more than 10 years, thus the same is liable to dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the knowledge of this commission and has not come to this commission with clean hands. The true facts are that the present complaint is time barred and the earlier the complainant has filed a complaint before Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh, but later on withdrawn the said complaint without the permission of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Punjab, Chandigarh. Thus the second complaint without the permission of this Commission is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has failed to set out any case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against OP No.2, thus the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 qua the OP No.2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 giving services to the complainant as when required by the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased car in the year 2010 and it is all due to negligence on the part to the complainant in maintaining the vehicle as alleged by the complainant in his complaint the damage or deficiency in service. It is all negligence on the part of the complainant inadequate and poor maintenance and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No.2. The complaint filed by the complainant is an afterthought and filed with an ulterior motive to make undue gains from the opposite party No. 2. The vehicle in question has always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant in order to build a false and frivolous case has been reporting alleged problems in the vehicle, whereas, the vehicle in question has been inspected and repaired and no abnormality related to above said alleged defects found in the vehicle. Thus, the complainant had been making demands and taking the shelter of this Commission and trying to put undue pressure on opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is one of the best authorized Volkswagen Dealer in Punjab and has the distinction of maintaining good relations with its customers. There was no manufacturing defect in the car. Rather, the complainant had concocted a false story qua the opposite party No. 2 in order to gain the sympathy of this Commission. Thus, the complainant had not invoked the jurisdiction this Commission with clean hands and the same has not only distorted the facts but also concealed the most material facts from this Commission. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed by this Commission on this ground alone. The present complaint is without any cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 However, the obligation of opposite party no. 2 under the warranty is that which is part and parcel of the sale contract. The opposite party No. 2 is only responsible for providing normal warranty services to certain terms and conditions and limitations. The relationships between the opposite parties are is on principal to principal basis. The opposite party No. 2 cannot be held liable to any independent act and omission, if any committed by the other parties. Thus for the acts of the one the opposite party, another opposite party could not be held liable. In the absence of expert evidence it cannot be alleged by the complainant that the vehicle in question was having any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant got his car to the workshop only for regular service and if the car is brought to the station for regular service, then it does not imply that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The warranty period of new car engine is only for 2 years and now the complainant filed the present false and frivolous complaint after ten years of purchasing the car i.e. legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant got his car to the workshop only for regular service and if the car is brought to the service station for regular service, then it does not imply that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, moreover, at the time of giving car to the service station for service has never lodged any complaint at that time regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the car and the story which have been put now in the present complaint by the complainant is an afterthought and concocted story only to get favourable relief from this Commission. The complainant is using the aforesaid vehicle in question for more than ten years and now after using the vehicle to such an extent, the plea of manufacturing defect as stated by the complainant is put forth with malafide intention and carries no truth. The vehicle in question carries the warranty of two years and the car has been used by the complainant since 2010 and in previous time no any such complaint has been filed. The complainant got his car to the workshop only for regular service and if the car is brought to the service station for regular service, then it does not imply that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. All negligence on the part of the complainant inadequate and poor maintenance and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No.2. It is all negligence on the part of the complainant inadequate and poor maintenance and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No.2. The bill raised by opposite party No.2 is a matter of record, but it is denied that authorized agency raised the said bill for repairs on account of purely manufacturing defects. There is negligence on the part of the complainant to maintain the and drive the vehicle in a proper way and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No.2. There is negligence on the part of the complainant to maintain the and drive the vehicle in a proper way and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No. 2. It is failure on the part of the complainant to properly maintain the vehicle in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 giving services to the complainant as when required by the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased car in the year 2010 and it is all due to negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle as alleged by the complainant in his complaint the damage or in service. It is all negligence on the part of the complainant inadequate and poor maintenance and the vehicle involved in the complaint was being service in a proper way as and when the complainant brought the vehicle in the service station of opposite party No.2. The vehicle was not inspected by an approved surveyor. The alleged report prepared by engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra was not in the presence of opposite party No.2. The engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra is not authorized by any court of law to give report. The alleged report given by engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra can neither be treated as an expert evidence nor cogent and reliable since on the face it is vague and absurd. Even the opposite party No.2 had provided all services well in time. The opposite party No. 2 denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alognwith the written version, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record satisfaction note Ex. OP2/1.
3 Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite party No. 1 but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and failed the file written version within prescribed period and right of opposite party No. 1 to file written statement was closed by order and opposite party no. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.9.2021. The opposite party No. 1 moved an application for setting aside the exparte order but the opposite party No. 1 was allowed to join the proceedings at the stage.
4 The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party No. 2 and controverted the stand taken by the opposite party No. 2 and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint. Alongwith the rejoinder the complainant has placed on record affidavit of Nardev Soni Ex. C-6, Affidavit of Er. J.S. Malhotra Ex. C-7, report Ex. C-8.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, and opposite party No. 2 and have carefully gone through the record.
6 From the combined and harmonious reading of the documents and pleadings of the parties is going to prove on record that the complainant purchased one "Volkswagen Pasaat" sedan model car on the allurement of executive of opposite party No. 2. Infact, complainant for want of a luxury car of good style having good features, power and excellent engine and most significantly safe and smooth when driven, got convinced by the executives of opposite party No.2. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 19,18,750/- after availing loan from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. to the tune of Rs.9,76,750/-. Further, the complainant contended that during the warranty period right from the second year from the date of purchase, major faults and breakdowns started occurring due to manufacturing defects in the aforementioned car. It is also imperative to highlight that on mere running for 42606 kms, problems of coolant malfunctioning and fuel leakage from injection area started occurring for which the complainant had to take the car to the workshop on 20.01.2012. Just after five months from the date of last repair i.e. 20.1.2012, again on 03.07.2012 at 54935 kms, as per total mileage run, problems of exhaust malfunctioning and coolant leakage occurred. All these problems occurred during warranty period and the complainant had to send the aforementioned car time and again to the workshop. The repair of the aforesaid exhaust malfunctioning and coolant leakage took more than a month and the complainant was left with no conveyance to commute for daily routine necessities for the said period. Thereafter multiple problems again arose in the car and the complainant could only drove 30000 kms in next three years i.e. from the date of last repair till it was again sent to the workshop for multiple repairs on account of manufacturing defects on 10.04.2015. The car again remained in the workshop for about a month and was handed over to the complainant on 7.5.2015 and for the said repairs the complainant had to pay Rs. 32,857/-. To the utter discontent of the complainant, again on 12.11.2016 on mere running of another 15000 km from the date of last repair, various major breakdowns including clutch plates, flywheels, Internal and external AC combo packs, brake discs and various other faults took place in the car, for which again the complainant had to pay huge amount to the tune of Rs.1,29,444/- for the said repair work. Again on mere running of another 3000 km from the last date of repair, car was again sent to the workshop on 12.04.2017 for various major faults including LONG BLOCK which itself costed Rs.4,06,473/- and the authorized agency raised a total bill to the tune of Rs. 5,34,466/- for the said repairs on account of purely manufacturing defects. These repeated issues in the car not only caused huge monitory loss to the complainant but great hardship as well since the car remained in the workshop for more than a month. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the car after being repaired was again sent to the workshop on mere running of another 30000 km from the last date of repair and the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- for multiple repairs on 19.04.2019. Thereafter, again within a span of one week some malfunctioning defect took place on 25.04.2019 for which the car was again sent to the authorized workshop. Thereafter again, on 11.07.2019 i.e. three months from the last date of repair, multiple problems occurred and the entire gear box, clutch kit and various other parts were changed for which bill to the tune of Rs.2,64,259.17 was paid by the complainant from his hard-earned money. The complainant has been writing numerous e-mails since 2012 seeking redressal of major malfunctioning and defects in the engine and other components of car. However, instead of accommodating the complainant, the O.P. turned a deaf ear towards his genuine grievances. In one of the e-mails, the O.P. No.1 has stated that "As already intimated to you by our DSM Lakhwinder Singh, Internal Engine components are damaged and need to replace. As per technical department, its better to replace complete engine instead of damaged components as cost of both are approximately same". This fact clearly highlights that the quality of the engine is substandard and the O.Ps are indulged in deceptive trade practices in minting out huge sums of money from their customers in this regard. The running and repair history of the vehicle clearly shows despite the vehicle going to the workshop at repeated and regular intervals for repairs (which are certainly not running repairs) in addition to the regular servicing schedule, wherein the vehicle could not be made operational properly even once, in the absence of any accidental repair, such a scenario in never expected in any normal vehicle what to talk of such a luxury vehicle claimed by the company to be one of the best available quality and luxury vehicle, it clearly proves that there are certain manufacturing defects in the vehicle which could not be removed completely despite repeated repairs, and also the service quality available at the dealership of O.P. No.1 as well as the spare parts are not upto the mark even, for that reason the vehicle despite going to the workshop in addition to regular servicing regime, going for repeated repairs for one reason or the other, but is never running smoothly to the satisfaction of the complainant at any point of time, though the signing satisfactory notes after every visit to the workshop is more a formality that a fact. All these circumstances have resulted into the complainant losing confidence for the vehicle may give a luxury and smooth ride as was expected, as the same is giving a feeling of turning into a source of constant headache and curse for him. Under these facts and circumstances, the complainant was left with no other alternative but to send a legal notice dated 15.10.2019 to the O.Ps through his counsel with the direction to rectify the manufacturing defects prevailing in the said car. However, the O.Ps have not even bothered to send reply to the legal notice dated 15.10.2019 or address the genuine grievances of the complainant. The aforesaid vehicle was even inspected by an approved surveyor and loss assessor Engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra on 16.11.2019. The said expert after going through the complete record of the car, has opined vide report dated 18.11.2019 that "These repairs were not repairs but were due to some unusual defects in the vehicle. There is no mention of accidental repair on the repair invoices, but the repairs were due to defects by the owner to the workshop. All these defects mentioned above clearly shows that there were certain defects in the vehicle when it was sold, and these defects could not be removed despite many a time the vehicle being taken for repairs. These repair records many a times with repeat repair of the same fault clearly show quality workmanship in repair/servicing of the vehicle as well as substandard material used in the repair of defects reported at various intervals parts as the defects could not be removed in the first instance when the vehicle was taken to workshops for running repair/servicing and the major defects keep on appearing one after the other, all these defects are not expected in a luxury and premium vehicle as of Volkswagen Pasaat as the record shows the never gave smooth ride" and prayed for replacement or repair the vehicle in question.
7 On the other hands, the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that the present complaint is not legally maintainable as well as the present complaint is time barred. As the car was purchased in the year 2010 and further contended that earlier the complaint was filed before Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh but later on same was withdrawn without permission from the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. Further the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that it was all due to the negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle as alleged by the complainant in his complaint, the damage and deficiency in service. The complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly and as and when the vehicle was brought in the service station, proper service was given to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the car as alleged by the complainant. However, the obligation of opposite party No. 2 under the warranty is that which is part and parcel of the sale contract. The opposite party No. 2 is only responsible for providing normal warranty services to certain terms and conditions and limitations. The relationships between the opposite parties are is on principal to principal basis. The opposite party No. 2 cannot be held liable to any independent act and omission, if any committed by the other parties. Thus for the acts of the one the opposite party, another opposite party could not be held liable. In the absence of expert evidence it cannot be alleged by the complainant that the vehicle in question was having any inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant got his car to the workshop only for regular service and if the car is brought to the station for regular service, then it does not imply that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The warranty period of new car engine is only for 2 years and now the complainant filed the present false and frivolous complaint after ten years of purchasing the car i.e. legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. The complainant got his car to the workshop only for regular service and if the car is brought to the service station for regular service, then it does not imply that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle, moreover, at the time of giving car to the service station for service has never lodged any complaint at that time regarding any alleged manufacturing defect in the car and the story which have been put now in the present complaint by the complainant is an afterthought and concocted story only to get favourable relief from this Commission. He further contended that the vehicle in question was not inspected by an approved surveyor. The alleged report prepared by engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra was not in the presence of opposite party No.2. The engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra is not authorized by any court of law to give report. The alleged report given by engineer Sh. J.S. Malhotra can neither be treated as an expert evidence nor cogent and reliable.
8 The opposite party has taken the objection that the present complaint is time barred as the car in question was purchased in the year 2010 but we are not agreed with the opposite party, since the vehicle in question is being brought to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 till date, as such there is continuous cause of action and the present complaint is within period of limitation.
9 Secondly, the opposite party No. 2 has stated that earlier this complaint was filed before the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but later on withdrawn without the permission of commission, thus, the second complaint without the permission is not maintainable, but we are not agreed with the opposite party No. 2 as this complaint was never decided on merits, as such, the complainant can file fresh complaint before this Commission.
10 Further the opposite party No. 2 has taken the objection that the complainant could not maintain the vehicle properly, as such, the vehicle was brought in the service station many times. As such, there was no manufacturing defect, it was only due to negligence on the part of the complainant for maintaining the same. But the opposite party No. 2 has not placed on record any cogent and convincing document which shows that the vehicle was getting out of order many times due to negligence of the complainant. As such, this plea of the opposite party No. 2 that the vehicle was not being maintained by the complainant properly is not legally sustained by law.
11 Further the opposite party No. 2 suspected the report of approved surveyor i.e. Sh. JS Malhotra as the report was made in the absence of opposite party No. 2. In this regard, we can safely reach to the conclusion that Mr. J.S. Malhotra is a qualified approved surveyor and loss assessor and his qualification is B.E. Mechanical, as such, he is fully authorised to give his findings upon the manufacturing defect of the said vehicle. Moreover, the report of the expert is supported by his affidavit. As such, this commission can rely upon the said report of expert and the said expert after examining the complete record opined that these repairs which was taken by the complainant of the car in question were not repairs but due to some unusual defect in the vehicle. He strongly suggested that there is no mention of accidental repair on the repair invoices, but these are the repairs due to the defects in the car. The said car was being taken for repairs to the service station because of there was manufacturing defect. Till date this manufacturing defect could not be removed by the opposite party No. 2, as such, the vehicle is requiring running repair and servicing in the small intervals. The opposite party No. 2 has never challenged the report of expert by examining the Engineer J.S. Malhotra in the witness box, as such, now they cannot take the stand that the expert report was prepared in the absence of opposite party No. 2.
12 Bare perusal of the record and documents on the file show that vehicle mere running for 42606 Kms started the problem of coolant malfunctioning and fuel leakage from injection area. Thereafter, just after 5 months from the date of last repair i.e. on 20.1.2012 again on 3.7.2012 at 54935 Kms problems of Exhaust malfunctioning and coolant leakage occurred. After that the complainant drove the vehicle 30,000/- Kms in next 3 years and again the vehicle was sent to workshop for multiple repairs on account of manufacturing defect on 10.4.2015 and the said car was remained in the work shop for a month and on 7.5.2015, the vehicle was handed over and complainant was forced to pay Rs. 32,857/-. But again in the year 2016, on mere running of another 15,000/- Kms various major breakdowns including clutch plates, fly wheels, internal and external AC combo pack, break disk and various other faults took place on the car and complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,29,444/- for the said repair work. Again on mere running of another 3,000/- Kms from the date of last repair car was again sent to the work shop on 12.4.2017 for various major faults including long block which itself costed Rs. 4,06,473/- and the authorised agency raised bill to the tune of Rs. 5,34,466/-. After running of another 30000/- Kms from the last repair the complainant again paid Rs. 75,000/- for multiple repairs on 19.4.2019. Thereafter again within span of one week the vehicle was sent to the workshop on 25.4.2019. Thereafter again on 11.7.2019, the complainant paid Rs. 2,64,559.17 Paise for multiple repairs. Various emails were written to the opposite party No. 1 for the redressal of manufacturing defect from the vehicle, the opposite party No. 1 stated that "As already intimated to you by our DSM Lakhwinder Singh, Internal Engine components are damaged and need to replace. As per technical department, its better to replace complete engine instead of damaged components as cost of both are approximately same". This fact clearly highlights that the quality of the engine is substandard and the O.Ps are indulged in deceptive trade practices in minting out huge sums of money from their customers in this regard
13 As such, it is very much clear from the above discussion, that the vehicle right from its purchase is being taken to the service station of the opposite party No. 2 regularly for its repair and the complainant has spent a lot of money to remove the defects in the Car in question and the said version of the complainant is duly supported by the expert J.S. Malhota and opposite party No. 2 has not controverted the report of expert at any stage. The vehicle which is being taken to the service station for its repair various times, it proves that surely, there is some manufacturing defect in the car, though the complainant has driving the car for the last 10 years but most of the time he has spent in getting the vehicle repaired in the workshop of opposite party No. 2. The complainant has placed on record invoice of repair as Ex. C-2 (Colly), which clearly indicate that the repair which was taken by the car of the complainant is due to some manufacturing defect. It has been held in revision petition No. 936 of 2012 decided on 12.5.2022 in case titled Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs M/s Joseph Mathew Thomas & Co. Anr. by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the manufacturer and the dealer were duty bound to ensure removal of the various problems and defects as had been continuously occurring in the vehicle. It is proved by the appraisal of the two for a below that the vehicle was giving problems and suffering from defects. As such, cost free repair was necessarily and unquestionably justified. In the instant complaint, the vehicle in question was giving problems from the very beginning and the complainant is spending his hard money on the said vehicle from the date of purchase. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his facility but due to defects occurred in the vehicle, the complainant is facing the problems up till today. The complainant is approaching the opposite party for repair of the said vehicle but the defect/ problem in the said vehicle is not cured and not removed the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle by the opposite parties and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
14 In view of above discussion, we partly allowed, the present complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair the vehicle in question free of costs to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. This complaint could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission and COVID-19. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
28.03.2023
