Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Shivani Tibrewala for the Complainant on admission at length.
[2] Perused the record.
[3] It is the grievance of the Complainant that on 30/11/2007 he had purchased a ‘Skoda Laura Elegance’ motor-car from the Opponent No.2, namely – M/s. Autograph Cars (I) Pvt. Ltd. Said car is manufactured by the Opponent No.1, namely – Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant purchased the said car for traveling from Daman to Mumbai for official purposes during the course of his business. It is a grievance of the Complainant that after second servicing on 22/5/2008, the car was dragging at a lower speed and further at slightly higher speed around 80-90 km. per hour, the car became unstable. Such problem occurred for the first time. It was further noticed that after the second servicing of the car, the acceleration of the engine speed found going up on and often. It was also noticed that earlier the car which was negotiating easily the curves on the highway, the car became unstable on such events. The Complainant feared that the stability features of the car were mal-functioning though warning signals never appeared to that effect. Car also had tyre inflation pressure control system which lights up a warning signal if there is any decrease or increase in the pressure of any tyre. While driving back on 30/6/2008, left side rear tyre got punctured but, no warning signal blinked. The Complainant assumed that it was due to poor quality of tyres used in the car. Same is the case in respect of fuse bulbs and no warning signals were received. It is further assumed by the Complainant that all such problems were due to low quality of spare-parts used by the car manufacturer. On 6/6/2008, the battery of the car was required to be replaced since there was starting problem. During the period 25/4/2009 to 2/6/2009, the car was parked at the workshop of the Opponent No.2 for abnormal arrest of speed while running at a speed of 100 km. per hour. Said defect was confirmed by taking a test drive to Lonavala and Virar. However, no permanent solution to the problem was found. The Complainant also referred to the two instances where repairing charges of `26,532/- and `50,847/- were collected from him inspite of repairs being covered under the warranty period. On 30/3/2011, further estimate of expenses of `93,750/- for replacement of various parts was also given. The problems are further detailed in paragraph (16)(iii) of the complaint referring to the pick-up problem, suspension problem, problem with air-conditioner switch, hard clutch, ignition start up, instability at high speed, driver side door handle, air-conditioner cooling, lag in the door stopper as well as engine noise, automatic window opening, problem with the front side door and poor average of fuel consumption of 14-15 km. per liter. It is a diesel car. Therefore, present consumer complaint was filed on 6/7/2011, alleging deficiency in service.
[4] From the job-cards placed on the record, it could be seen that the problems were attended for different causes as and when reported to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Those problems were attended at the service station of the Opponent No.2. Even one satisfaction note dated 13/3/2010 placed on the record signed by the Complainant in respect of Job No.3709 dated 10/3/2010, pertaining to the problem – ‘CHECK AC COOLING NOT PROPERLY, CHECK NOISE WHILE TURNING’. It is reported by the Complainant as under:-
“We have taken a trial from Mumbai-Daman-Mumbai on 11-3-2010 alongwith Mr. Suresh Kumar & the unstability above 100 km/hr & pick up problem & the pressure at Acceleration still there.
….taken the road test of my car. Now the car is in good condition and performing to my entire satisfaction. I am hereby taking the Delivery of my Car along with the Belongings.”
The matter typed in Italics appears in handwriting and authenticity of the said endorsement in handwriting needs to be established particularly when it runs contrary to the typed matter. It appears that problem of the car for which the car was referred to M/s. JMD Auto India Pvt. Ltd., and for those complaints it is specifically recorded that the Complainant had taken the road-test and the car was in good condition and performing to the Complainant’s entire satisfaction.
[5] From the material placed on the record, prima-facie it could be seen that the car had run for more than 50,000 km. and for initial running of six months there was no problem at all. What-ever the complaints surfaced, they came thereafter. All those complaints were within the area of repairs and were attended from time to time through the service centre and that too, to the satisfaction of the Complainant. Prima-facie, it does not appear to be a case of any manufacturing defect as tried to be painted by the Complainant. There is no report placed on the record to substantiate the case of the Complainant about alleged manufacturing defect or use of any inferior quality parts by the manufacturer of the vehicle.
[6] There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent No.2 – Dealer, or any service centre as alleged. If it relates to a complaint pertaining to inferior quality parts used by the manufacturer, considering the date of purchase viz. 30/11/2007 and the fact that even according to the Complainant, the defects were surfaced after second servicing done on 22/5/2008, a consumer complaint filed on 6/7/2011 cannot be entertained as the same is time-barred since no application for condonation of delay is made. The Complainant stated that the cause of action first arose on the 15th day on which the Opponents failed to reply to the Complainant’s advocate’s legal notice dated 1/10/2009. Such is an erroneous statement about accrual of cause of action.
[7] For the above-referred reasons, we find that the Complainant has failed to make any prima-facie case to admit the complaint, whereby the Opponents are required to call upon to answer the charges. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Complaint is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly. In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 27th September, 2011
