Date of Filing: 16/06/2011
Date of Order:12/10/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.1097 OF 2011
Mr. A. Prasanth,
S/o. Ashok.K,
R/at: No.224, 10th ‘A’ Main Road,
HRBR Layout, Kalyan Nagar,
Doddabanasawadi, Bangalore-560043.
(Rep. by Advocates FX & Co.) …. Complainant.
V/s
1) M/s. Tafe Access Limited,
No.68, 69, Velacherry Road,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
Rep. by its General Manager.
2) M/s. Tafe Access Limited,
No.3, St. Mark’s Road, B’lore-560 001.
Rep. by its Sals Manager.
3) M/s. Tafe Access Limited,
Barani Industrial Estate, No.919,
Garvepalya, Chikka Begur Road,
Off: Hosur road, B’lore-560 068.
Rep. its Manager.
4) M/s. Skoda Auto India Private Limited,
A-1/1, M.I.D.C. Five Star Industrial Area,
Shendra, Aurangabad-431201.
Rep. by its General Manager.
(Rep. by Advocate M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.9,00,000/-, are necessary:-
Skoda Fabia Cars are manufactured by the opposite party No.4 to which opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the authorized dealers and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service center. The complainant has purchased this Skoda Fabia Car bearing No. KA-53-P-981 from the second opposite party on 31.03.2010 approximately had had paid the total sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. A few days later it was a shocking thing to the complainant that there was vibration in the engine, every one kilo meters the car stops it has to be restarted again, A.C. cannot be used. It was informed to the second opposite party, the technicians of the opposite party visited and vefiried the defects but could not rectify it. Finally the opposite party requested the complainant to leave the vehicle in the workshop. Accordingly it was delivered on 10.05.2010. Thereafter the complainant was called and informed that there is a manufacturing defect in the engine. The opposite parties humiliated the complainant in an unbecoming manner. The opposite parties are not willing to compensate or at least replace the defective car. There is warranty. As there was no alternative the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties on 28.05.2011 asking them to return Rs.7,00,000/- with Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation as it has not been complied this complaint is filed.
2. Originally only opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 were on record, later opposite party No.4 has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 has filed their version and opposite party No.4 filed a Memo stating that the version of the other opposite parties be read as their version also. In brief the versions of the opposite parties are:-
Without mechanical inspection of the car in question the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties unconditionally willing to get the car subjected to examination or otherwise seek assistance of an expert in terms provided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The vehicle had travelled more than 16645 kilometers from the date of purchase this itself prove that there was no manufacturing defect. The car is in road worthy conditions and is ready for delivery after June-2011 after having carried out necessary repairs without any costs to the complainant. The complainant has purchased the car in question by paying Rs.6,87,000/-on 31.03.2010. The car had no manufacturing defect nor there were any engine problem nor there were any vibration in the engine nor the car stops for every one kilometer nor there was any other problem nor it was intimated to the opposite parties. The complainant brought the car for first service on 25.03.2011 at 15,005 kilometers on which date the complainant did not have any problem with car or its engine. After service complainant took delivery of the car on 28.03.2011 being fully satisfied with the car. This clearly goes to show that there is no defect in the car, nor any deficiency in service were notice nor informed to the opposite parties. The complainant brought the car on 10.05.2011 to the work shop of the third opposite party with a problem of vibration in the car/engine, as on that day it had run 16,649 kilometers. The grievance of the complainant has been addressed and the car has been in road worthy condition since 08.06.2011 and the opposite parties called upon the complainant to come forward to take delivery of the car, as the complainant did not respond to the phone calls, e-mails were sent to the complainant. It is the complainant who is holding the opposite parties to ransom. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their affidavits. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
:- POINTS:-
- Whether the car in question has any manufacturing defect or any deficiency in service is there?
- What Order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) & (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A to B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that opposite party No.4 is the manufacturer of the SKODA Fabia Car to which the opposite party No.1and 2 are the authorized dealers and opposite party No.3 is the authorized service center and the complainant purchased the car for Rs.6,87,000/- on 31.03.2011 from opposite party No.2. In this case originally opposite party No.4 was not a party to the proceedings but subsequently when the matter was argued at that time an application was made and opposite party No.4 was impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The opposite party No.4 had filed a Memo stating that the version of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 be read as their version also.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that within a few days from the date of purchase the vehicle was stopping for every kilometer and there was a problem in the engine. This has been denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have clearly stated and sworn to that the vehicle never stopped at every kilometer nor there was a problem in the engine nor there was manufacturing defect nor it was intimated to them nor it was told to them. There is nothing to disbelieve it, no contra material is placed. The opposite parties have submitted that on 25.03.2011 the complainant has brought the vehicle to the third opposite party for the first time after purchase for first free service. This has not been denied by the complainant. From 30.01.2010 till 25.03.2011 for an year the vehicle had no defect there was no problem at all and the vehicle as on 25.03.2011 had plied 15,005 kilometers. That means the allegation that the vehicle had engine problem, it was stopping at every kilometer, there was vibration in the engine is not at all established. But it is disproved from the first free service that has been attended to by the opposite party No.3. Even the complainant has issued a satisfactory letter on 28.03.2010 stating that he is satisfied with the free service that has been done and the vehicle was in good condition. On 25.03.2011 the complainant has simply complained of general check-up general wheel alignment, left side brake light bulb was not working, fuel pump and fuel filter has to be checked. There is no other defects that has been found to the opposite parties even after one year at the time of first free service. Hence the allegation that the vehicle was stopping at every kilometer there was problem in the engine there was vibration in the engine, etc., is not possible to be believed. If the vehicle were to stop every kilometer or there was vibration in the engine how can the vehicle run for 15,005 kilometers from the date of purchase till the date of first free service? There is no answer.
8. Further it is an admitted fact that on 10.05.2011 the complainant delivered the vehicle to the third opposite party stating that there was engine vibration and the vehicle was stopping at every one kilometer. It is seen that as on 10.05.2011 the vehicle had plied 16649 kilometers that means from 28.03.2011 up to 10.05.2011 in 45 days the vehicle had plied 1649 kilometers, on an average 36.5 kilometers per day. If the vehicle had to stop at every kilometer the vehicle could not ply 1649 kilometers in 45 days.
9. The opposite parties have clearly stated that the vehicle has been attended to and the grievance of the complainant has been addressed and the vehicle is in road worthy condition on 07.06.2011 and the complainant has refused to take the vehicle for the reasons best known to him. There is no per contra material to this. When the vehicle is in road worthy condition as on the date and all the grievance of the complainant has been addressed how can the complainant seek return of the sale price or payment of compensation? There is no answer. Merely the opposite parties had taken about a month to address the grievance of the complainant it does not mean the vehicle had any manufacturing defect.
10. It is an admitted fact that the parts of the car in question has to be imported from Czechoslovakia and it is not manufactured in India. Hence during the warranty period the opposite party has to get the parts, address the grievance of the complainant. Here the warranty has been given to see that within the warranty period the complainant can get the grievance addressed free of cost. Here the grievance has been addressed by the opposite parties. For the reasons best known to the complainant he has not gone to take delivery. The complainant is not an automobile engineer to say that even though the opposite parties have repaired the vehicle it is having manufacturing defects. The opposite parties have clearly stated that they are prepared to get the vehicle examined by any automobile expert. Even then the complainant has not taken the assistance of an automobile expert to evaluate the vehicle in question. The engine vibration may be caused due to certain bolts might have been loosen the vehicle may be stopped owing to wrong supply of fuel or dust in the filter it cannot be said that it is a manufacturing defect. Anyway opposite parties have clearly stated that they have serviced the vehicle and repaired the vehicle. Hence it is for the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. There is no expert opinion to establish that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect.
11. If the complainant while taking delivery of the vehicle may take any automobile expert with him got the vehicle examined by him and still if he finds of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle he can approach the Forum for which this order will not come in the way.
12. However if the complainant wishes to take delivery, being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle, in that event the opposite party may consider of giving another two years warranty. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
-: ORDER:-
- The Complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 12th Day of October 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
