BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 72 of 2016
Date of Institution : 10.3.2016
Date of Decision : 7.9.2017.
Vinod son of Shri Hardayal Singh, resident of village Mamera Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Surjeet Motors Pvt. Ltd., Volkswagen, Sirsa, Office at Dabwali Road, Opp. Maharaja Palace at Sirsa, through its Authorized person.
2. Surjeet Motors Pvt. Ltd., Volkswagen Hisar, 10 Kms stone, Delhi Hisar By-pass, NH-10, Hisar, through its authorized person.
3. Volkswagen, India Pvt. Ltd., E-1, MIDC Industrial Area (Phase-III), village Nigoje Mhalunge Kharabwadi, Tal Khed, Chakan, Pune- 410501 through Director/ Authorized person.
4. Worlkwagon Group Sales India Pvt. Limited, office at Silver Utopia, IIrd and 4th Floor, Carinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri-East, Mumbai-400099 (Marketing Sales Company working under the manufacturing company).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. T.S. Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Ms. Sunita Verma, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite party no.4 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased a car Polo H/L (D) of Volkswagen from opposite party no.2 through op no.1 against the full payment of the cost of the vehicle vide retail invoice dated 25.4.2015. The delivery of the car was provided to the complainant at Sirsa by op no.1 with guarantee of two years. The complainant got registered the same from the Registering Authority Ellenabad vide registration No.HR-44H/1111 by spending an amount of Rs.70,852/- approximately and also spent a huge amount of Rs.41,585/- on the insurance of said vehicle. That just after the purchase of the said car, the complainant was shocked to detect the major problem in the fuel tank/ pump of the said car and on account of this major problem in the car, the car has been rendered as useless and just like a scrap. The complainant complained about the same to ops and requested them for replacement of the said vehicle as same is having major/ manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also made complaint at the toll free number of ops and on his complainant, the op no.1 kept the vehicle in their custody with an assurance that they would either get replaced the said car or manage the redressal of grievance of complaint by managing the refund of the cost of the said vehicle alongwith interest thereon and other charges incurred by complainant because the engine defect occurred within the guarantee period. The op no.1 took the custody of said vehicle without issuance of any job sheet in this regard. But the complainant was shocked when ops no.1 and 2 after keeping confined the said car with them for a long period on behalf of ops no.3 and 4 stated to the complainant that the engine of car has suffered major problem and ops no.1 and 2 demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant and stated that if the complainant is ready to make payment of the same, then the car of complainant would be replaced with new one with further guarantee. That upon this demand by the ops in collusion with each other, the complainant raised the protest hotly as the car is within guarantee period and they are legally liable for replacement of the car and due to the act and conduct of the ops the complainant has undergone unnecessary harassment. That when the ops failed to redress the grievance of the complainant rather remained adamant to extract the amount in an illegal way and by committing deficiency in service, the complainant also got issued a legal notice upon ops on 26.12.2015 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that all prompt efforts have been put up by ops to render satisfactory service to the complainant, however, the complainant is not ready and willing to cooperate and has filed absolutely false case. The so-called difficulties mentioned by complainant are not correct. Even the complainant has not produced any mechanical report/ expert evidence with regard to any manufacturing defect. The ops gave the guarantee with respect to manufacturing defect but not with respect to the defect due to any other reason. The reason which are not included in the terms of guarantee are fault on the part of purchaser and fall due to any other reason, which is not related with the manufacturing of the company. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in pump of the car rather same is due to the adulterated use of oil by the consumer. After the moment when the vehicle was handed over to answering op, it was found that due to the use of adulterated oil for running the vehicle, the problem has arisen in the engine which is ultimately not covered in the guarantee as given by ops. During checking it was found that there is some problem in the CR system and injector malfunctioning, which is only occurred due to the fuel adulteration. As per the warranty clause, such parts are not considered under warranty, as these are not any produce quality issue, as per the VW warranty norms fuel adulteration issues neither entertainable under the warranty, nor technical support. In this manner, the customer has to give approval for replacement of these parts, under payment basis. The vehicle is manufactured after verifying and to the entire satisfaction of Engineer of the company and only then the same is marketed in the market. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its separate written statement has averred that op no.3 has no privity of contract with the complainant as op no.3 does not sell cars either to dealer or the customer directly. The cars manufactured by op no.4 are sold to op no.4. The allegation qua the alleged manufacturing defect has been made in a half hearted manner which clearly shows that the complainant is fully aware that there exists no manufacturing defect in the subject car. All other contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. Initially opposite party no.4 appeared through counsel and sought various opportunities for filing written statement but did not file the same and ultimately op no.4 opted to be proceeded against exparte.
5. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and photographs Ex.C17 to Ex.C19. On the other hand, ops no.1 to 3 produced affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. Learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that it is proved on record that complainant had purchased a car Polo on 25.4.2015 from op no.2 through op no.1. The delivery of the car was provided to complainant at Sirsa by op no.1. It is also proved that complainant was shocked to detect major problem in the fuel tank/ pump of the said car and car has been rendered as useless and just like a scrap. Since long the vehicle is in custody of op no.1 without issuance of any job sheet and they have not carried out any repair in the vehicle rather demanded Rs.2,50,000/- for the replacement of the vehicle, though the vehicle is very much in the warranty period and caused a huge loss to the complainant and the act of the ops clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops No.1 and 2 has contended that vehicle of the complainant is not within the warranty as the injector was malfunctioning and this defect in the vehicle may be due to adulteration of fuel as per the observation of the technical expert of ops No.1 & 2 and complainant was asked by ops to get the vehicle repaired on payment basis for which he did not agree and the vehicle is standing in the custody of ops no.1 and 2. The ops no.1 and 2 are ready to carry out necessary repairs at the expenses of complainant.
9. Learned counsel for op no.3 has contended that until and unless it is not found that vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect, the ops no.3 and 4 are not liable for any repair or replacement of the vehicle.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. There is no dispute between the parties qua purchase of the vehicle from ops no.1 and 2 by complainant. Further there is no dispute that vehicle of the complainant is standing in the custody of ops no.1 and 2. The bone of contention between parties is qua the defect in the vehicle. As per contention of the complainant, vehicle suffers from some manufacturing defect in the fuel tank/ pump as a result of which the vehicle is not working and same has been parked in the custody of ops No.1 and 2 and ops have not issued any job sheet qua the work of the vehicle.
11. Further, it is not disputed that vehicle was purchased on 25.4.2015 vide retail invoice and after sometime, the complainant noticed the defect in the vehicle and went to the authorized dealer and lodged the complaint with ops no.1 and 2 regarding defect in the vehicle. Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has not denied that vehicle is not standing in their custody. Further they have not denied defect in the vehicle. The only dispute is qua the carrying out of repair within warranty or at cost of the complainant. Since defect has occurred within short time of purchase of the vehicle and it is proved fact on record that vehicle is within warranty period, though the ops have taken plea that defect may be due to adulteration of the fuel used by complainant in the vehicle. The perusal of evidence of ops reveal that ops have furnished affidavit of Sh. Sharwan, Authorised person of Surjeet Motors Pvt. Ltd. as Ex.RW1/A who has deposed in support of written version of ops no.1 and 2. Though he has deposed in the affidavit that some problem is in the CR system and injector which only occurred due to fuel adulteration but this version of said Sharwan does not find any corroboration from other evidence of ops. Once it is proved on record that still the vehicle has not been opened by the technical expert of the vehicle, how the authorized person of Surjeet Motors can depose that problem may be due to fuel adulteration. On the other hand, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of his complaint in which he has deposed qua the contents of his complaint and has also produced on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and photographs Ex.C17 to Ex.C19. So, it appears from the record that vehicle of complainant is within warranty period and it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs in the vehicle and make it roadworthy and complaint free to the satisfaction of the complainant.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the vehicle even by replacing any part if same is required without any cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also to release the vehicle to the complainant without any further delay. In case it is found that the vehicle is irreparable and it needs the replacement of the engine of the vehicle, the ops shall replace the engine of the vehicle without any cost. The ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- to the complainant as compensation and litigation expenses. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:07.09.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
