Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/96/2014

Dr. Sandeep Raheja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Swami Automotives P. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/96/2014
Date of Institution	:	13/02/2014
Date of Decision	:	08/04/2015

 

 

Dr. Sandeep Raheja son of Sh. Hans Raj Raheja resident of House No.467, Sector 21, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.           Swami Automotives P. Ltd., Showroom No.32, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

2.           Volkswagen India Private Ltd., E1, MIDC Industrial Area (Phase-III), Village Nigoje Mhalunge, Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune 410501 through its Director.

 

3.           Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Silver Utopia, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099. 

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM :	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                       

       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Counsel for OP-1
		Sh. Nikhil Thakur, Counsel for OP-3 also as proxy Counsel for Sh. Manish Jain, Counsel for OP-2

                         

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Dr. Sandeep Raheja, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Swami Automotives P. Ltd. & Others, (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), with the following allegations.

                The Complainant is working as Technical Assistant-cum-Agriculture Development Officer, in Haryana Government, and he purchased one luxury vehicle i.e. Volkswagen Vento 1.6 CR (MT) Highline Candy White Livon Beige Car from Opposite Party No.1, for a total consideration of Rs.9,45,905/-, on 26.12.2013, vide retail invoice copy of which is Annexure C-2A. The Complainant had purchased the car on 26.12.2013, under the exchange scheme, in accordance with which the Opposite Parties were offering discount of Rs.60,000/-. Another reason for the purchase of the car, in the last week of December, 2013, was that Opposite Parties told the Complainant that there will be hike in the registration charges from 1^st Jan. 2014. The woes of the Complainant started from the date of purchase itself, because the Complainant had purchased the car from Chandigarh, but the Opposite Parties provided a temporary (registration?) number issued to him by the Registering Authority, Karnal. Temporary certificate is Annexure C-1 and copy of warranty is Annexure C-2. It has been alleged that in the retail invoice, the name of the Complainant was incomplete and shown as ‘Dr. Sandeep’, instead of ‘Dr. Sandeep Raheja’ and further, also, his mobile number was given as 9780519290, instead of 9779316407. It has been contended that the above illegal and negligent acts on the part of Opposite Parties are not only reflective of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, but also their improper conduct. Due to the said negligent acts of the Opposite Parties, Complainant faced a lot of harassment at the time of registration of the vehicle and due to that there was some delay in getting the car registered with the registration authorities.

 

                It has been further contended that in the receipts (Annexure C-3 and C-4), the name of the Complainant was recorded as ‘Dr. Sandeep Rahja’ instead of ‘Dr. Sandeep Raheja’, and customer bill was not given to him. Since the Complainant had availed loan facility, for the purchase of car, he had to meet lot of harassment from the Bank people. He had to visit the showroom of Opposite Parties, umpteen times, to get the said receipts corrected.

 

                Thereafter when the car came on road it started giving trouble because key of the car gets stuck in the ignition. Further, gear stucks every time when it is shifted from 2^nd to 3^rd gear. The Complainant brought these facts to the notice of the Opposite Parties on 11.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 and the same are duly reflected in Annexure C-7 and C-8. Opposite Parties told the Complainant that steering lock with ignition part was ordered and it would take some time for the part to arrive at the Service Centre, because the same had to arrive from Germany. The said part was replaced only on 25.01.2014. In this way, the Complainant faced a lot of harassment and mental agony. Many a times the car of the Complainant got struck in traffic.

 

                It has been further contended that in the description sheet dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure C-8), the date of the delivery of the car was shown to be 30.11.2013 instead of 26.12.2013. The Complainant feels that the above said mischievous act was not a typographical error, but intentional & deliberate and not bonafide. It is his case that the problems in regard to stucking of gears has not been addressed. It has been averred that the Opposite Parties have failed to deliver the promised services. If pre-inspection checks were carried out by the Opposite Parties, as claimed, then, there should not have been any chance of the car going out of order within one day of the purchase of the same. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Parties are guilty of prevarication and supressio veri and unfair trade practice and they are also deficient in providing adequate services to the Complainant. The Complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to repair his car to his entire satisfaction and to rectify the wrong names mentioned in the retail invoice and Annexure C-7. The Complainant has also made a request for payment of compensation and punitive damages along with litigation expenses.      

 

2.         Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has admitted the factum of purchasing of car under a scheme and issuance of temporary registration certificate by the Registration Authority, Karnal. It has been averred that the car demanded by the Complainant was not available with the Chandigarh Dealership and since the Complainant was in a hurry to purchase the car, to avail the various offers, available under the Scheme, the car was summoned from the Karnal Dealership, in order to meet the demand of the Complainant, and at that moment, the Complainant did not raise any objection. It has been further admitted that the name of the Complainant was wrongly typed as Dr. Sandeep instead of Dr. Sandeep Raheja and his mobile number was wrongly given in the retail invoice. Further, it has been contended that the said mistake in the name of the Complainant and mobile number was rectified by Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure R-1. It has been admitted that there is a mistake in the spelling in the name of the Complainant in the receipts Annexure C-3 and C-4, but it has been averred that the same was ultimately rectified vide Annexure R-1.  It has been admitted that the keys of the car get stuck in the ignition and the required part was summoned for Germany. It has been further averred that in Annexure C-8 due to typographical error the date of delivery of the car was shown as 30.11.2013, instead of 26.12.2013, and in order to compensate the Complainant for this mistake, he was offered extended warranty of further one year, but he refused. It has been submitted that the date of delivery cannot be corrected now, as once the vehicle is purchased, the date is entered on the car port vide Netcom, automatically with the manufacturing company at Germany. It has been stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the car purchased by the Complainant nor the Complainant has placed on record any expert opinion. It has been stated that all the queries of the Complainant were listened to and addressed to and there is no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1.  

 

3.         Opposite Party No.2, in its reply and evidence, has submitted that the Volkswagen India Private Ltd. does not have any dealers nor does it sell the cars manufactured by it to dealers or customers. The car in question was never sold by Opposite Party No.2 to the Complainant or the dealer through whom the said car was purchased. It has been averred that Opposite Party No.2 does not issue any warranty on the cars manufactured by it. The warranty for the cars manufactured by it is issued by another company i.e. Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Ltd. having its office at Silver Utopia, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai. It has been further stated that Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Ltd., Mumbai appoints the authorized dealers for sale of the cars to the customers directly. Opposite Party No.2 is neither the necessary nor a property party.

 

4.         During the pendency of the Complaint, the Complainant filed an application for impleading Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Ltd., Mumbai, as a party, which was allowed vide order dated 7.8.2014. Thereafter, an amended complaint was filed and notice was issued to the newly added Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Ltd., Mumbai – Opposite Party No.3. 

 

5.         Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement, has pleaded that the Complainant has done nothing more than a deliberate and willful attempt to extract monies from Opposite Party No.3 on false and frivolous pretext of alleged facts for which Opposite Party No.3 cannot be liable. It has been averred that Volkswagen vehicles are known worldwide for their quality and features therein and they have to pass through stringent quality tests and safety test as per high quality requirements and safety standards. Opposite Party No.3 being sales company provides warranty on the vehicles through its dealer upon certain terms and conditions. It has been averred that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Complaint against Opposite Party No.2. It has been further stated that Opposite Party No.3 appoints dealers across India on principal to principal basis and the transactions between the Complainant and its dealers are not known to Opposite Party No.3. It has been averred that Opposite Party No.3 was not a part to the purported transaction between the Complainant and the dealership. It has been submitted that whenever the Complainant approached the Workshop of the said dealership with minor Complaints, the same were appropriately addressed, and the Complainant is now levelling false allegations, in order to gain undue benefits from the Opposite Parties. It has further been stated that the Complainant made a pre-delivery inspection and signed the inspection documents which clearly establishes that the Complainant did make a pre-delivery inspection and his allegations are afterthought and baseless. 

 

6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7.         After going through the entire evidence, written submissions of the parties and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the complaint merits acceptance partly.

 

8.         As far as the objection of the Complainant that he had purchased the car from Chandigarh, but he was issued a Temporary Registration Certificate from the Registering Authority, Karnal is concerned, it is true that though the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant from Chandigarh, through Opposite Party No.1, yet the Temporary Certificate of registration (Annexure C-1) was issued by Swami Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Karnal. However, Opposite Party No.1 has clarified the position in respect of this allegation, by explaining that the car demanded by the Complainant was not available with the Chandigarh dealership and since the Complainant was in a hurry to purchase the car, to avail the various offers available under the Scheme, it was summoned from Karnal dealership, to meet his demand. The explanation, offered by the Opposite Party No.1, inspires confidence. Pertinently, the complainant did not raise any objection at that moment that the car registered by the Registering Authority, Karnal was not acceptable to him.  Otherwise also, even if the explanation of the Opposite Party No.1 is not considered to be correct, still we fail to understand as to what harassment has been caused to the Complainant, if he has been provided a temporary certificate of registration by Swami Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Karnal, instead of Swami Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh. The fact remains that in the Temporary Certificate of registration (Annexure C-1), the Complainant is shown to be a resident of Panchkula, and it is also mentioned that the vehicle is to be permanently registered at Panchkula. Consequently, the contention of the Complainant that his woes started from the date of purchase itself, is devoid of any substance.

 

9.         The next contention of the Complainant is regarding incomplete description of his name and wrong description of his mobile number in the retail invoice and receipts. A perusal of the copy of retail invoice (Annexure C-2/A) shows that Opposite Party No.1 indicated the name of the Complainant as ‘Dr. Sandeep’, instead of ‘Dr. Sandeep Raheja’, and indicated his mobile number as 9780519290, instead of 9779316407. Opposite Party No.1 has admitted these mistakes, but stated that the said mistakes were rectified vide retail invoice (Annexure R-1). It is significant to note that there is absolutely no documentary evidence to this effect that this document was ever supplied to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has not produced any postal or courier receipt or any receipt, in writing, from the Complainant, which could show that the said document (Annexure R-1) was actually dispatched to/ received by the Complainant.  Apart from that Annexure R-1 nowhere shows that the mobile number of the Complainant was corrected therein. Similarly, in the copies of receipts (Annexure C-3 & C-4) the caste of the Complainant ‘Raheja’ was not correctly spelled. Though Opposite Party No.1 has stated that the correction has been made in the retail invoice (Annexure R-1), yet it does not mean that the spelling of the caste of the Complainant was corrected in the original receipts, copies of which are Annexure C-3 and C-4. Since the Complainant had taken a loan from the Bank for purchasing the vehicle, one can easily visualize the embarrassment and harassment experienced by him from the Bank staff, on account of the above said mistakes in the retail invoice and the receipts Annexure C-3 and C-4. Consequently, we find deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 on this count.           

 

10.         The next grievance of the Complainant is in respect of the mention of wrong date of delivery of car in the repair order dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure C-8). Importantly, in the said repair order, the date of delivery of the car is shown to be 30.11.2013, instead of 26.12.2013. Opposite Party No.1 has admitted this mistake and has pleaded that the date of delivery cannot be corrected, because that date has been entered on the car port vide Netcom automatically with the manufacturing company at Germany. Though the Opposite Party No.1 has pleaded that in order to compensate the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 offered extended warranty for further one year, but the Complainant refused, yet no such document has been produced. We are of the view that once it is established that the delivery of the car was actually made on 26.12.2013, Opposite Party No.1 ought to have issued a certificate that it was wrongly indicated as 30.11.2013 in the repair order (Annexure C-8). The above said omission on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 also amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

 

11.         The last grievance of the Complainant relates to the trouble of key of the car getting stuck in the ignition and the gear stucking everytime when it is shifted from second to third gear. The Complainant brought these defects to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 on 11.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 vide Annexure C-7 and C-8. It is the admitted case of Opposite Party No.1 that a part relating to steering lock with ignition was to be received from Germany and the said part was replaced only on 25.1.2014. We are of the view that when the Complainant had purchased a new car on 26.12.2013 and that suffered from the defect of the key of the car stucking in ignition, Opposite Party No.1 ought to have removed the defect, at the earliest. The problem was reported to Opposite Party No.1 on 11.1.2014 vide Annexure C-7, but the same was rectified only on 25.1.2014, on the ground that the required part was to be imported from Germany. Since Opposite Party No.1 had sold the vehicle to the Complainant and had issued a dealership warranty (Annexure C-2) and Opposite Party No.3 had issued a paint work and body warranty; Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 ought to have replaced the defective part in the ignition switch, within a reasonable period. Since the Complainant had to wait up to 25.1.2014, for replacement of that part, this delay must have caused ample harassment and agony to the Complainant, who had purchased a new car.  It was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to keep in its Workshop the necessary spare parts and it was the duty of Opposite Party No.3 to provide such a spare-part within a day or two, instead of keeping the Customer waiting for such a long period. Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have not produced any such document, which could show that the Complainant made a pre-delivery inspection and he was satisfied with the performance of the car. Consequently, we find deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 in not replacing the defective part, within a reasonable period.

 

12.         So far as the contention of the Complainant that the defects in the car could not be rectified after carrying out extensive repairs is concerned, the same is not supported by any documentary evidence. The Complainant has not produced any such expert report, which could show that the car is still suffering from the defects of stucking of key in the ignition or stucking of the gear.  The Complainant has not produced even a single document, which could show that he approached the Workshop of Opposite Party No.1 after 25.1.2014, in respect of the defects in the ignition switch and relating to stucking of gear. It is true that the Complainant has cited some rulings i.e. Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar Vs. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Anr., Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 and Hyundai Motors India Limited Vs. Affiliated East West Press (Pvt.) Limited, I (2008) CPJ 19(NC), relating to defects occurring in the vehicle and non-requirement of the expert report, yet after going through the rulings, we do not feel that the same are applicable to the facts of the present case. This case is not a clear case of res ipsa loquitur, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Complainant. Rather the evidence points out that the car is now in perfect working order and the allegations regarding any defect in the same are baseless.  
13.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 only.  The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are directed as under :-

i)      Opposite Party No.1 is directed to give a Certificate, in writing, to the Complainant, rectifying his name, caste, mobile number and the date of delivery of the car. The certificate should mention that the said particulars have been corrected in the records of the Opposite Party No.1.

ii)     Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 shall jointly and severally make payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him on account of deficiency in service on their part.

iii)    Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 shall also make payment of an amount of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.

The Complaint fails against Opposite Party No.2.

14.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; failing which the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 shall pay the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization by the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs and complying with the direction at Sr. No.(i) above by the Opposite Party No.1.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/04/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
	Member	President