DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.276/2022
Sh. Siddharth Gupta
S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta
R/o M-24, Saket M Block, New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
JSB Auto, Skoda Workshop
Metro Station No. A10, Mohan Cooperative Ind.
Estate, Mathura Road, Near Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi- 44
Skoda India
A-1/1, M.I.D.C, Five Star Ind. Area,
Shanedra, Aurangabad- 431201
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.
E-1, M.I.D.C. Ind. Area, Phase- III,
Village- Nigoje, Mhalunge, Kharabwadi,
Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune- 410501
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 20.09.2022
Date of Order : 06.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
- Upon receipt of the Complaint on 20.09.2022, the case was listed for admission on 27.09.2022. The Complainant appeared on VC. The Complainant purchased Skoda Rapid ELE AT 1.5 TDI on 18.02.2015 from Skoda India A/1/1 M.I.D.C, Five Star Industrial Area, Shanedra, Aurangabad. On 01.08.2022, the complaint sent his said vehicle for timely servicing at Skoda Service Centre. During the services, nothing came up in the regular Check up. The complainant was satisfied.
- On 09.08.2022, the complaint was driving his said car and it started malfunctioning resulting a breakdown. On 11.08.2022, complainant was shocked to have received the 1st estimate amounting of Rs.1,31,497/-. The same was shared with Skoda requesting to
re-examine the fault as he had always followed the proper service-cycle. The Skoda refused to help and stated that they cannot do anything until the complainant agrees to deposit the estimated amount. - Meanwhile, the complainant got the legal notice served on Skoda on 12.08.2022. Skoda refused to do the repair and offered a small discount on labour charges. Further, Skoda stated that they will charge Rs.300/- per day as parking charges.
- On 24.08.2022, the Skoda sent an additional estimate of Rs.74,354/- explaining that there is one part that needs replacement. The complainant was forced to give declaration to this effect that he will take any legal action and in exchange, they will make above mentioned part complimentary (copy of email is annexed as Annexure 4 with the complaint).
- On examination of the complaint, it was noticed that the complainant has not produced any shred of evidence to this effect whether the subject vehicle was under the warranty. The complainant has a grievance against the authorised workshop of Skoda for insisting on the point that firstly, the estimate was not made in one go that too on higher side and secondly, they insisted on deposition of due amount. As regards to payment of repair and replacement of some parts, that is the procedural aspect. It is very difficult to assume that there had been a unfair practice on the part of the Skoda India or its authorised workshop. The complainant has also not produced the rate list approved by M/s Skoda India so as to enable this Commission to arrive at this decision that the complainant has been charged for the replacement of parts on higher cost.
- The complainant has also assailed the M/s Skoda India for forcing him to give declaration in their favour for not initiating legal course against them. The complainant has annexed e-mail on Annexure-4. After going through, it could not be made out that some kind of settlement has been reached on the basis of the Annexure-4. Hence, this argument of this complainant is not sufficient to hold the M/s Skoda India or its authorised workshop deficient in service.
- In nutshell, after having considered the oral averments of the complainant and other material placed on record, this Commission does not find any material to this effect that the complaint discloses any dispute. Hence, the complaint is not found fit for admission.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
