View 1430 Cases Against Automobile
Meena Kauldhar W/ Gurnam Singh filed a consumer case on 22 May 2017 against Swami Automobile Pvt. Ltd in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is 465/2012 and the judgment uploaded on 26 May 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No. 465 of 2012
Date of instt. 21.09.2012
Date of decision:22.05.2017
Meena Kauldhar widow of Gurnam Singh c/o Eveden Eye, near Hari Om Properties, Shashtri Nagar, Ladhot Road, Rohtak, Haryana.
……..Complainant.
Versus
1. Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Volkas Wagen, 117-118, KM Stone, NH-1, G.T.Road, Karnal 132001 through its Managing Director.
2. Volks Wagen (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Sales) E-1, MIDC, Industrial Area, (Phase-III) village Nigoje Mhalunge, Kharabwadi Tal, Khed Chakan, Pune-410501 through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.
Ms. Veena Rani…….Member
Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.
Present:- Shri A.S.Virk Advocate for complainant.
Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Shri Surender Saini Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that she purchased one Volkswagen (Polo High Line) car from opposite party no.1, for an amount of Rs.5,91,273/-, vide invoice dated 28.7.2010. The opposite party no.1 charged the price of the top model of the car. When she perused the owner’s manual, it was revealed that the facilities which were shown in the owner’s manual of the car were not actually in the car sold to her. On coming to know about the said fact, she visited opposite party no.1 and requested for change of the car, because the same was not in consonance with the top model, but the opposite party no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. She wrote letters dated 19.5.2012 and 19.6.2012 to the opposite parties asking them either to replace the car or provide all facilities as per owner’s manual, but to no effect. About one week ago she again visited the opposite party no.1 and requested for providing the facilities, but the opposite parties flatly refused to accede his request. Such acts and conducts on the part of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency in service due to which she suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and that the complaint is an outcome of agreed with the ulterior motive to grab the benefits illegally.
On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle with all accessories/features available in 2010 model, was delivered to the complainant. Owner’s manual for every vehicle either diesel/petrol or top/middle/lower model, remains the same at worldwide or also the changes/amendment in the features can be done by the manufacturer company only. The complainant visited opposite party no.1 at Karnal for the first time with issue regarding features in the vehicle Polo Top Model Petrol (highline) in the month of May 2012. The opposite parties had shown all the features available in polo top model petrol 2010 India and the same features were available in the vehicle delivered to the complainant. The complainant was told that the company can amend any features in the model and the same has been done, vide circular no.83/2012 dated 10.9.2012 in which certain features were added to the Polo Top Model Petrol. The complainant had thoroughly checked the features of vehicle Polo 2010 at the time of purchase. At the time of test drive also she was fully satisfied and opted to purchase the said vehicle. At the time of delivery, she checked all the accessories and signed the letter/gate pass. It has further been pleaded that the opposite party no.1 is the dealer of the Volkswagen company. The car was delivered to the complainant with all available features as received from the manufacturing company. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action; that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law.
On merits it has been averred that the owner’s manual on which the complainant has relied upon clearly mentions that “All equipments and models are described without indicating whether the equipment is optional or specific to the model type. This means that your vehicle may not have some of the equipments described, or it may be available in certain markets. The scope of equipment fitted in your vehicle can be found in the sales documentation and you can contact your Volkswagen dealership for further information.
All data in this owner’s manual correspond to the information available at the time of going to print. Because the vehicle constantly being developed and further improved, there may be differences between your vehicle and the date in the owner’s manual. No discrepancy in date, illustrations or descriptions shall become basis for any legal claim.”
Inspite of the said explanation in owner’s manual the complainant with malafide intention filed the present complaint. The dealer delivered the same vehicle to the complainant, which she had asked and paid for. The complainant conveniently ignored the contents of the owner’s manual which clearly specify that the features mentioned in the owner’s manual may vary from the actual vehicle. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.
4. In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/E have been tendered.
5. On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Harshavardhan Jogdand Ex.R3 and documents Annexure-R1 and R2 have been tendered.
6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased one Volkswagen (Polo Highline) car from opposite party no.1 on 28.7.2010 for Rs.5,91,273/-. The complainant has produced the copy of the invoice Ex.CW1/C, in this regard. The complainant has alleged that on perusal of the owner’s manual it was found that all the facilities/features mentioned in the owner’s manual in the top model polo were not provided in her car and she wrote letters dated 19.5.2012 and 19.6.2012 to opposite parties in that regard, but to no effect. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant had herself thoroughly checked the features of the vehicle at the time of purchase and signed letter/gate pass dated 2.8.2012. The car was having all the available features and the same was supplied to the complainant as received from the manufacturer. It has further been averred that in owner’s manual it was clarified that the vehicle may not have some of the equipments described in the owner’s manual, which may be available in certain markets and the scope of equipments fitted in your vehicle can be found in the sales documentation.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant put a great thrust upon the contention that as per owner’s manual, the car should have all the features of the top model, but the car sold to the complainant was not having all features of the top model. Some of the features mentioned in the owner’s manual were not available in the car of the complainant and the details of such features is mentioned in Ex.CW1/D. He further pointed out from the copy of the owner’s manual shown by him that the features of switch for adjusting the exterior mirrors, Anti-theft alarm, Interior monitoring system and anti-tow alarm, centre arm rest, belt height adjuster, switching the front passenger front airbag on and off manually using the key operated switch, rain sensor, exterior mirrors, roof carrier, stowage compartment in the front centre armrest, stowage compartment on the front passenger side, drawers, parking distance warning system and optical parking system as mentioned in the owner’s manual were not provided in the car of the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties due to which the complainant suffered mental harassment apart from financial loss.
9. At page 4 of the owner’s manual shown by learned counsel for the complainant, information about the owner’s manual has been given and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:-
“Any technical changes made to the vehicle after publication of this booklet are included in a supplement included with the vehicle wallet.
All equipment and models are described without indicating whether the equipment is optional or the model type. This means that some equipment may be described which your vehicle may not have or which is only available in certain markets. The scope of equipment fitted in your vehicle can be found in the sales documentation and you can contact your Volkswagen dealership for further information.
All date in this owner’s manual correspond to the information available at the time of going to print. Because the vehicle constantly being developed and further improved, there may be differences between your vehicle and the date in the owner’s manual. No discrepancy in date, illustrations or descriptions shall become basis for any legal claim.
Please make sure the complete vehicle wallet is always in the vehicle if you lend or sell the vehicle to someone else.
A bare reading of the owner’s manual makes it quite clear that all the equipments and models are described without indicating whether the equipment is optional or model type, which means that some equipment may be described, which your vehicle may not have or which is only available in certain markets and the scope of equipment fitted in your vehicle can be found in the sales documentation and the purchaser can contact the dealer for further information. It has further been clarified that the data mentioned in the owner’s manual correspond to the information available at the time of printing the manual, but the vehicle is constantly being developed and further improved, therefore, there may be differences between your vehicle and the data in the owner’s manual and no discrepancy in date, illustrations or descriptions shall become basis for any legal claim. Thus, all the features mentioned in the owner’s manual cannot be claimed by any purchaser in the vehicle purchased by him. The scope of equipment fitted in the vehicle can be found by the purchaser in the sales documentation.
10. The complainant purchased the car on 28.7.2010. She remained silent for a period of about one year and 10 months and wrote first letter to opposite parties on 19.5.2012 claiming that features of drawer under front passenger seat, switch for adjusting the exterior mirror and parking sensor were not in her vehicle though mentioned as owner’s manual. It is not the case of the complainant that the dealer had assured that he would provide all the features in the car sold to her. In fact, the complainant had checked her car completely and verified the features available in her car at the time of delivery. She even signed the pre delivery check list, the copy of which is Annexure-R1. She did not raise any objection at the time of delivery that the car was not having all those features of top model, which were mentioned in the owner’s manual. The opposite parties have also produced the copy of the document Annexure-R2 regarding the standard features of polo highline 1.2L(P)and in the said document there is no mention of the features claimed by the complainant.
11. In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant cannot have a legal right to claim all the features mentioned in the owner’s manual in her car. Therefore, not providing all features in the car of the complainant as per owner’s manual, neither can be considered as deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, because it has been specifically clarified that all such features may not available in all the markets and the complainant got delivery of the car after checking and verifying the available features as per sales documentation.
12. As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 22.05.2017
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Veena Rani) Anil Sharma)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.