Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/114/2018

Balwinder Singh Bhatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Garg, Adv.

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	114 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	12.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	14.03.2019

 

Balwinder Singh Bhatti aged about 41 years son of Sh.Tara Singh Bhatti, resident of W.No.5, Street No.1, Jiwan Nagar, Faridkot, Distt. Faridkot (Pb.).

                                                       ……Complainant

V e r s u s

1.        The Ford India Pvt. Ltd., S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu Tamil Nadu – 603204.
2.        Bhagat Ford, 658, Industrial Area-A, Sherpur Bye-Pass, G.T. Road Ludhiana, Distt. Ludhiana.
3.        M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. 53, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.

                                                    .... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                        MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:      

 

Sh. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. V.K.Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. H.S.Bedi, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked one vehicle Ford Endeavour 3.2L with the Opposite Parties at Bathinda, which was delivered to him on 09.06.2016 from the showroom of Opposite Party No.3 at Chandigarh by paying an amount of Rs.29,42,575/- vide bill (Annexure C-1). It was stated that after the purchase of the said car, the same started giving problems i.e. on 12.07.2016 when the said vehicle run only 3233 kms., the complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 and at that time TPMS sensor was changed. Thereafter, on 08.08.2016 (runs only 7291 Kms), Head Lamp Focus of the Head Light of the left side of the car was changed. On 13.09.2016 (runs upto 11516 Kms), Head Light of the right side of the car was also changed ; on 23.03.2017 (30750 kms), the tyres of the car were changed under warranty ; on 17.05.2017 (runs about 46647 kms) body shop light of the vehicle was also changed ; on 11.08.2017 (runs about 62723 kms) its Torque Convertor was changed and at that time the vehicle remained in the workshop for about 38 days and on 05.10.2017 (runs about 66120 kms) the Sensor Craft Shaft was broken and it was replaced. It was further stated that even the suspension of the vehicle under the second row seat was not working properly and the same was not running smoothly, which showed that there was some manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the said vehicle has to be replaced. Copies of the bills are Annexure C-2 colly. It was further stated that the said vehicle is under warranty as the warranty of the same is upto 1,00,000 Kms and till now the vehicle runs only about 75000 Kms. It was further stated that the vehicle still has the starting problem, as the sensor of the vehicle is not working, due to which, the complainant is suffering harassment.  Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice through his Counsel on 10.10.2017 (Annexure C-3) to the Opposite Parties, which was duly replied vide letter dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.           Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, has stated that the relationship between the replying Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.2 (authorized dealer) is on ‘principal-to-principal basis’. It was stated that liability of selling of the cars and after sale services are exclusively provided by authorized dealers and not by the replying Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his complaint that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent/manufacturing defect persisted in the vehicle, as neither any Engineer’s (expert) report nor any other convincing material has been filed by the complainant to prove his case.  It was further stated that the warranty obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the parts, which is provided to be suffering from any manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party is a manufacturer and no liability is upon the replying Opposite Party except manufacturing defect in the car. It was further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant suppressed the material fact while filing the complaint that the car was involved in a road accident and the accidental repairs were carried out by the authorized dealer. It was further stated that the complaint involves several disputed questions of fact and law, therefore, the complaint cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings and only the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint, as the registered office of the replying Opposite Party in Chennai. It was further stated that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that if there was any dispute concerning the repair work undertaken by the authorized dealer or delay in delivery of car, it was on the part of the dealer and not the replying Opposite Party.  It was further stated that without there being any manufacturing defect, the necessary repair work was carried out by the authorized dealer under warranty by replacing the worn parts as a goodwill gesture. It was further stated that after the purchase of the car on 31.05.2016, the car was first reported at a workstation of authorized dealer for periodical maintenance service on 12.07.2016, on which date, the complainant had raised concern qua TMP malfunction lamp glowing and a bulge in the front right side tyre. It was further stated that TMP lamp was glowing not of any fault but was due to minor adjustments/rectifications in the TPMS sensor and the same was duly rectified by replacing the TPMS sensor. Similarly, on 08.08.2016, the complainant reported the authorized dealer with concern relating to front left side headlight focus but after inspection, it was observed that the headlight focus was downwards and required minor adjustments. Thereafter on 05.09.2016, the complainant reported the car at the workstation for 2^nd free service. It was denied that on 13.09.2016 the head light of the right side of the car was changed. To the contrary, it was stated that the headlight focus was downwards and required minor adjustments, which was rectified by replacing the headlamp assembly at no cost to the complainant. It was further stated that changing of tyres under warranty due to manufacturing defect is concerned, wearing of tyres is not due to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that the tyres are rubber items and are subject to wear and tear and they are affected by the driving conditions and the handling of the vehicle. It was further stated that the authorized dealer immediately lodged a complaint with the tyre manufacturer i.e. MRF tyres, however, rather than awaiting report from the tyre manufacturer requested the dealer to replace the front two tyres with low cost tyres, which were replaced. It was denied that on 17.05.2017 the body shop lights of the car were changed. It was further stated that the car was reported at the workstation for fitting of body lights of the car, which was fitted to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that on 17.05.2017 the front right windscreen frame was also repaired and the entire body of the car was found to be full of dents/scratches. It was further stated that on 29.07.2017, the complainant had reported the car at the workstation for repairs following an accident, which fact the complainant has suppressed in the entire complaint. It was further stated that on 11.08.2017 the car was reported at the workstation on account of abnormal noise and after checking, it was found that the torque converter required replacement and the same was replaced under warranty at no costs to the complainant. Thereafter on 05.10.2017 the sensor crankshaft required replacement, which was replaced at no costs to the complainant. It was further stated that on the said date i.e. 05.10.2017 no complaint regarding the car suspension was raised by the complainant. It was further stated that the car as on date of filing of the complaint was 21 months old and had clocked about 75000 Kms, which averages to around 3600 kms per month, as such, it is not possible for the vehicle with any manufacturing defect but some parts were replaced from time to time due to normal wear and tear. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of replying Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.           Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in their joint written statement, stated that the complainant has failed to show any cause of action available to him to maintain the complaint against the replying Opposite Parties as the allegations in the complaint are only against Opposite Party No.1 i.e. manufacturer of the car. It was further stated that the warranty of the car is provided by Opposite Party No.1, as such, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying Opposite Parties regarding manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties are not liable for any acts of omission and commission, if any, claimed by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect. It was further stated that there is no problem in the vehicle and the same is in a running condition, which is amply clear from the fact that the complainant has already driven the vehicle for 75000 kms within a span of almost two years which comes out to 3100 kms per month and, as such, approximately 100 kms per day and no vehicle having manufacture defect can be driven with such high mileage. It was further stated that the warranty of the vehicle has been given by Opposite Party No.1 for two years or upto 1 lakh kms, whichever is earlier and during the warranty period, there was one or two occasions where certain parts were replaced under warranty due to wear and tear but this could never be termed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that the car was involved in an accident and accidental repairs were carried out by the dealer, which fact was suppressed by the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle whenever was brought to the workshop of the replying Opposite Parties, the defect was rectified after satisfaction of the complainant, as such, there is no deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the replying Opposite Parties. 

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

6.              Without going into the merits of the case, the only sole question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant concealed the material fact regarding damage of the car in an accident, in question, or not. According to the complainant, after the purchase of the vehicle, number of problems occurred in the said vehicle, due to which, he not only once but a number of times visited the workshop of the dealer to repair the same, which suffered a lot of harassment. The complainant further submitted that the said problems were occurred due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for replacement of the vehicle.  After going through the record, we are not impressed with the contention of the complainant. Annexure C-1 is a copy of retail invoice dated 09.06.2016. From this document, it is proved that the complainant purchased Ford Endeavour 3.2L vehicle for an amount of Rs.29,42,575/-. After the purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant visited the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 on 12.07.2016, when the said vehicle had run 3233 Kms. At the time of service, the complainant raised concern regarding TMP malfunction lamp glowing and bulge in the front right side tyre. The said TMP malfunction lamp was glowing due to TPMS sensor required minor rectification/adjustments and the same was done by the dealer by replacing the TPMS Sensor. As regards the tyre bulge, no abnormalities were observed and the vehicle was returned to the complainant to his complete satisfaction. Thereafter, on 08.08.2016, the complainant reported the vehicle to the workshop of the dealer related to the problem of front left side headlight having not proper focus. After inspection, it was found that the headlight focus was downwards and required minor adjustments and even there is no record of the front left side headlight being changed at the time of reporting. According to the Opposite Parties, second & third free services were done by the dealer on 05.09.2016 & 21.02.2017. With regard to the problems of front tyres is concerned, the complainant approached the workshop of the dealer on 23.03.2017 (at page No.26 of the file). It is pertinent to note that tyres are rubber items subject to wear and tear and are affected by the driving conditions and handling of the vehicle. However, as a goodwill gesture, the front tyres were replaced with low cost tyres rather than awaiting report from the tyre manufacturer and the said dealer shared equally the costs of tyres with the complainant. Thereafter, the vehicle was reported to the dealer on 17.05.2017 for fitting the body lights in the vehicle and the same was fitted to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  It is also noted here that the said fitment was not due to any defect but pursuant to the request of the complainant. The allegations of the manufacturer as well as the dealer i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are that on 29.07.2017, the vehicle of the complainant was delivered to the dealership for repairs following an accident, which fact was suppressed by the complainant in the complaint also. A bare perusal of the retail invoice (at page No.33 of the file) clearly reveals that lot of dents/scratches were in bumper, door, fender etc. Moreover, in the retail invoice dated 11.08.2017 (at page No.35 of the file) clearly mentioned that Convertor Trans amounting to Rs.2,27,789.85 was replaced by charging an amount of Rs.3726/- only and the said amount was borne by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, on 05.10.2017, the vehicle of the complainant was reported to the dealership on account of starting problem. After its examination, it was found that the crankshaft sensor required replacement and the same was replaced under warranty at no cost from the complainant. The dealer denied the allegation regarding vehicle’s suspension raised by the complainant at any point of time. Moreover, a perusal of the file reveals that the car on the date of filing of the complaint was 21 months old and had clocked about 75000 Kms, which averages to around 3600 Kms per month i.e. more than 100 Kms per day. So, it is not possible for a vehicle with any manufacturing defect to be available for this kind of extensive usage. Moreover, during the warranty period, there was two or three occasions where certain parts of the vehicle were replaced under warranty due to wear and tear but the same can never be termed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Otherwise also, once the vehicle, which is being extensively used by the complainant and has been driven for almost 75000 Kms within a span of two years, there cannot be any manufacturing defect in such type of a vehicle.  After going through the job cards placed on record by the complainant, it is clearly proved that the vehicle suffered from severe dents/scratches etc. If it is so, it can very well be said that the complainant was driving the vehicle, very carelessly & negligently. On the other hand, still when the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the dealer, as a goodwill gesture, the same kept on repairing the same without any charge and replacing the damaged parts. Under these circumstances, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. It is very significant to add here that to the reply filed by the Opposite Parties to the legal notice sent by the complainant, in para no. 9 at page 44, it was specifically stated that the complainant suppressed that the vehicle had met with an accident, as a result whereof it was taken to the workshop on 29.07.2017. This statement of the Opposite Parties was never challenged/objected by the complainant by way of filing reply to it, by way of sending letter to the Opposite Parties. Furthermore, the said allegation of the Opposite Parties was also never challenged by way of filing any rejoinder to the written statement, wherein the said plea had again been taken by Opposite Party No.1 (manufacturer) and also Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 therein.  As such, an adverse inference can be drawn out of the silence maintained by the complainant on this ground that the vehicle had met with an accident, amounted to concealment of material facts, which goes to the root of the case. So, it is clearly proved that this is a clear case of concealment of the material fact from this Commission. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi also observed in Atlanta Arcade Premises Co.op. Society Ltd., 2012 (1) CCC 138, that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, go on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Time and again courts have held that if any litigant approaches the Court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial Forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Note was taken of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindra Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904 to the effect that:

“Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgement debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system Note was also taken of the observations of the Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. v/s. Nirmala Devi and Ors. to the effect that:

It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve, clandestine objects false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminatively in our Courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the Courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 668 this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our Courts Note was also taken of para 50 where a common mans general impression was articulated:

Make any false averments, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation , and in any case, delay the matters endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.

Eventually the revision petition was dismissed by the National Commission with costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Rs. 1,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited in consumer legal aid account.”

The principle of law is fully applicable to the present case. We are of the view that it is settled law that if any, concealment of material fact is found on the part of any party, then such party cannot be granted any discretionary relief under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.           In view of above, this complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.

8.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

March 14^th, 2019                                    Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

[PRESIDENT]

 

Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

rb