Date of filing: 24.07.2013.
Date of disposal: 13.03.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member
Sri S. Sreeram, B.A., B.Com., B.L., Member
Thursday, the 13th day of March, 2014
C.C.No.140 of 2013
Between:
Kantamani Partha Saradhi, S/o K. Kasivisweswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 38 years, Door No.14-133, S.R.K. Mansion, Near RTC Bus Complex, Rajahmundry.
….. Complainant
And
1. The Managing Partner, M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt., Ltd., A-1/1, M.I.D.C., Five Star Industrial Area Shendra, Aurangabad – 431201.
2. The Manager, M/s Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt., Ltd., Survey No.250/11, NH – 5,
Next to Gowtham College, Vijayawada – 521 104.
. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 26.02.2014, in the presence of Sri Syed Mohammed Moosavi & S.M. Sultan Moosavi, advocates for complainant; Sri A.P. Venugopal, advocate opposite party no.1; Sistla Hanumath Prasad, advocate for opposite party no.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao,)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the car sold to the complainant with new car, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased Skoda rapid car from the showroom of the 2nd opposite party at Vijayawada on 15.12.2011 for Rs.9,35,338/-. The complainant took delivery. He was sending the car for services. The 2nd service was done and the car was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2012. Thereafter when the complainant was proceeding towards Rajahmundry from Vijayawada the car suddenly stopped on the highway with loud noise. Fumes emanated from the car engine. The complainant called the road assistance. They came and took the vehicle to Vizag service station. The complainant had engaged a private vehicle to reach Rajahmundry when the car broke down on the way. The complainant took delivery of the car in the 1st week of January, 2013 after the 2nd opposite party said that the defects were rectified. The complainant could not put the car for tests as he was away till the end of January, 2013. The complainant drove the car at the end of January, 2013 and found loud noise and excessive hobbling. He noticed that there was no coolant in the tank of the car. The complainant provided coolant and sent the car to the 2nd opposite party showroom to rectify the defects. The opposite parties did not rectify the defects and did not deliver the vehicle. There is gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had provided accessories of the car and its value was Rs.11,00,000/-. As the vehicle was not delivered after rectification of the defect the complainant got issued legal notice dated 11.3.2013 to both the opposite parties. The complainant demanded to replace the car with new one and expressed unwillingness to take delivery of the car as it has manufacturing defects. The 2nd opposite party had sent a letter dated 15.3.2013 asking the complainant to take delivery of the car without mentioning the issue of legal notice. Thereafter the present complaint is filed.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed version, which was adopted by the 1st opposite party, admitting the sale of car and reporting the car for service and denying the other allegations and further stating as follows:
The complainant brought the car to the Skoda Rapid car workshop on 10.1.2012 for running repairs at the odometer reading of 2366 Kms. The defect was rectified and the car was delivered to the complainant. Again the complainant brought the car on 28.2.2012 after 5520 Kms run for accident repairs and body denting. The 2nd opposite party had executed the painting works and repaired the vehicle and delivered the car to the complainant on 9.3.2012. Later the car was brought for 1st servicing on 2.5.2012 and for 2nd servicing on 8.12.2012 at odometer readings of 10,404 Kms and 25,226 Kms respectively. At the time of 2nd servicing the complaint was sound emanating from the engine and it was found to be due to use of fuel mixed with water. Fuel pump and pipe line were replaced and required consumables were changed. The car was delivered to the complainant in roadworthy condition on 20.12.2012. The car again broke down on 27.12.2012. Skoda assistance brought the car to Vizag service center and then the odometer reading was 25,806 Kms. The complaint was smoke emanating from the engine. The vehicle was thoroughly checked by the technical staff and found everything normal and delivered the car to the complainant on 29.12.2012. Thereafter the car was reported at the workshop of the 2nd opposite party on 11.2.2013 for running repairs at odometer reading of 27,710 Kms. The technical officers of the 2nd opposite party identified the problem and after taking the consent of the complainant carried out repairs. Due to non-availability of required spares at Vizag servicing center more time was taken for replacement of parts. The spare parts had to be procured from Pune. The delay was informed to the complainant from time to time. The car was made ready on 12.3.2013 after it was put to testing. There is no deficiency in service or in manufacturing the vehicle. After the vehicle was kept ready in roadworthy condition the complainant was informed and he was asked to take delivery. The complainant was not interested to take delivery of the vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The car was trouble free up to odometer reading of 27,710 Kms. There were only minor complaint which were rectified from time to time to the satisfaction of the complainant. the complaint is misconceived and the opposite parties are not liable to replace the vehicle and not liable to pay amounts claimed.
4 The complainant filed his affidavit as deposition of PW.1. The head technician of the 2nd opposite party filed his affidavit as deposition of DW.1. Exs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B6 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. They also filed memoranda of written arguments.
6. The points that fall for determination are:
- Whether there is manufacturing defect in the car sold to the complainant?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in attending repairs to the complainant’s vehicle?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?
Point No.1:
7. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on 15.12.2011 as per tax invoice, Ex.A1 for a sum of Rs.9,35,338/-. The complainant states that he provided accessories to the car and it is worth Rs.11,00,000/- The complainant himself stated that the vehicle was taken for 1st servicing and 2nd servicing and after 2nd servicing the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2012. So the complainant had run the vehicle for about one year without major troubles. By the date of 2nd servicing the vehicle has covered 25,226 Kms as per Ex.B3 history card. The complainant has not pointed out any major problem faced by him till then.
8. According to the complainant the vehicle broke down in the month of December, 2012 when the complainant was proceeding to Rajahmundry from Vijayawada. The complaint was that there was loud noise and fumes were emanated from the car engine. On intimation from the complainant the Skoda assistance has taken the vehicle to Vizag service center. Thereafter the vehicle was handed over to the complainant in the 1st week of January, 2013. The history card shows opening of job card on 8.12.2012 and invoice was prepared on 20.12.2012 when the vehicle was taken for 2nd free servicing. Ex.B3 also shows that the job card was opened on 27.12.2012 and invoice was prepared on 29.12.2012 and the vehicle was brought for running repairs. The complaint is noted as smoke coming from the engine. By then odometer reading was 25,806 Kms. It means after the vehicle was taken delivery on 20.12.2012 it was run for about 680 Kms before the vehicle broke down on the way to Rajahmundry.
9. The vehicle was again brought to the 2nd opposite party on 11.2.2013 complaining the vehicle vibrations and engine noise and coolant leakage. According to the history card Ex.B3 the vehicle was again brought on 13.2.2013 complaining engine noise and it was repaired by 13.3.2013. In this regard the detailed information is given under Ex.B1. It contains the manner in which the defects were identified taking service of the technical staff communicating with them and rectifying the defect. Ex.B1 reveals that all the four injectors were replaced and the vehicle was subjected to road test and the performance of the vehicle was found to be good. The repairing was completed about 3.40 pm on 13.3.2013. The opposite party had stated through DW.1 that the car was made ready by 12.3.2013 and the delay was due to procurement of parts and replacement and then the vehicle was put to testing. DW-1 further states that after the car was kept ready in roadworthy condition it was informed to the complainant but the complainant was not interested to take delivery of the vehicle. The complainant himself had stated that he issued legal notice on 11.3.2013 and the he received a letter dated 15.3.2013 from the 2nd opposite party asking the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. So repairs were done and the complainant was asked to take return of the vehicle admittedly by 15.3.2013 and the complainant did not take the vehicle initially. No doubt there was some delay in getting repairs. The reason for the delay and the continuous process of investigation to identify the defect are noted in Ex.B1.
10. The complainant made the following statement in paragraph.8 of the complaint:
“Under these circumstances the complainant took delivery of the car having several mechanical and inherent manufacturing defects and the claims of second opposite party that the defect is rectified is not correct as the vehicle is giving trouble time and again and there is no useful purpose in taking delivery of the vehicle as it is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect”.
The complaint was filed on 24.7.2013 so by that date according to the above paragraph of the complaint the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle. Ex.B3 the history card shows that the vehicle was again taken to the service center even subsequent to taking delivery on 13.3.2013 first five entries in Ex.B3 show that the job card was opened on 13.3.2013 and invoice was prepared on 10.4.2013, complaint was engine noise and repaired type was running repairs. Thereafter the vehicle was reported at the service center on 23.4.2013 for service camp on 22.7.2013 for running repairs for renewal of tail light and rapid inscription, on 16.8.2013 for running repairs complaining dickey not working, break pads and discs requiring check up and noise on the front right side and left side and on 10.9.2013 for paid service complaining vibration while applying brakes and engine noise. Ex.B6 is the latest history card. It further shows that the vehicle was reported at the work station on 21.6.2014. By then the odometer reading was 51,075. The complainant had not stated about the vehicle reporting at the workshop in the month of April and in the month of July up to 22.4.2013 the date of complaint. Even after the alleged dissatisfied service and issued of notice the vehicle had run more than 23,000 Kms by 21.1.2014. Therefore from these facts it can be safely said that there is no manufacturing defect as such and whenever there was any defect in any minor parts in the vehicle they were replaced by the opposite parties. It is further to be noted that the complainant did not get the vehicle tested by any independent technician to show that it has manufacturing defect in any part of the vehicle. Therefore we hold that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
Point No.2:
11. On all the dates of the vehicle taken for service, the 2nd opposite party was attending to the services required. It cannot be readily said that the breakdown while going to Rajahmundry was due to any deficiency in service, when there is no report showing the reason for the trouble arose at that time. As per Ex.B3 three days time was taken for the service station to deliver the vehicle after repairs and vehicle was delivered on 29.12.2012. Earlier the vehicle was brought on 8.12.2012 to the 2nd opposite party for 2nd free service and at that time free service was done engine oil and filters were changed, wheel alignment and balancing was done, breaks and clutches were checked up and front suspension noise was checked up. One set of brake pads for disks were provided besides fuel filter, air filter, filter element and for gas cut etc. The vehicle appears to have been delivered on 20.12.2012. When the last service was done and the vehicle was delivered on 20th December, fumes emanating from engine and noise in the engine noticed on 27.12.2012 may not occur unless there was some deficiency in rendering service a week earlier by the 2nd opposite party or there was some other untoward incident taking place involving the vehicle in between the time of taking delivery of the vehicle and the occurrence on 27.12.2012. However we cannot readily draw inference without further details, that the occurrence on 27.12.2012 was due to defective service rendered by the 2nd opposite party during 2nd free service from 8.12.2012 to 20.12.2012.
12. As observed earlier the 2nd opposite party had taken long time for rectifying the defects when the vehicle was reported on 13.2.2013. The technical enquiries query seems to have started on 13.2.2013 and the vehicle seems to have observed on 14.2.2013, 21.2.2013, 4.3.2013, 12.3.2013 and 13.3.2013. Exs.B1, B3, B4 and B6 show the opposite parties attending to service. We do not find any deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Point No.3:
13. In view of the answer on point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This complaint is liable to be dismissed. We are not inclined to burden the complainant with costs.
14. In the result this complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to steno, N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 13th day of March, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
Kantamani Partha Saradhi, – PW.1 The Head Technician of OP.2
(by affidavit) DW – 1, (by affidavit).
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 15.12.2011 Original copy of tax invoice.
Ex.A2 Photocopy of motor vehicle cover note.
Ex.A3 14.12.2011 Photocopy of DD for Rs.8,00,000/-.
Ex.A4 11.03.2013 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OPs
Ex.A5 Postal receipts.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7 15.03.2013 Copy of letter issued by OP.2 to complainant.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Photocopy of direct information system service (DISS)
Ex.B2 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B3 16.09.2013 Copy of vehicle history card and retail invoice.
Ex.B4 Photocopy of direct information system service (DISS)
Ex.B5 Photocopy of job card.
Ex.B6 01.02.2014 Copy of vehicle history card and retail invoice.
PRESIDENT
