O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he purchased a Skoda Laura 1.9 car from first Op which was fitted with the Air Conditioner, on 05/01/2007. Since from the date of purchase, the Air Conditioner in the vehicle was not working properly and he was compel to leave the vehicle in the garage of Ops and in some other garage authorized for attending the defects in the Air conditioner. On every such action though AC compressor was replaced free of cost as it was within the warranty period but still AC was not functioning properly. The AC used to start functioning after the vehicle running 10 Kms. The Ops used to retain the vehicle promising to repair and return. After more than a week on 19/05/2007 AC blower was cleaned, on 04/08/2007 Air Filter was cleaned, on 28/09/2007 Filters were replaced. On 09/01/2008 AC pollen Filter cleaned, on 04/03/2008 Filters were replaced, on 07/05/2008 Filter was cleaned, on 19/08/2008 AC fan was replaced, again on 02/06/2009 and on 18/06/2009 AC again started mal functioning. Therefore, he left the vehicle with the OP and it was re-delivered on 24/06/2009, after replacing AC compressor. But even then he experienced the same problem with the AC. Thus the Ops have failed to rectify the technical defects in the vehicle and therefore he is unable to use the car for purpose of his luxury. Despite several requests to replace the vehicle, the Ops have not obliged and therefore, he got issued a legal notice on 09/12/2009 and thus attributing deficiency in the service of the Ops and contending that they have indulged in unfair trade practice has prayed for a direction to the Ops to replace his car with a vehicle having good specification and defect free or in the alternative to award compensation of Rs.19.00 lakhs and to pay cost.<br /> <br /> Ops No.1 and 2 have appeared through their advocate and filed version. Op No.1 in his version contending that complaint is not maintainable admitted to have sold the car to the complainant on 05/01/2007 but contended that there was no problem in the car and it was given for first free service, on 05/03/2007 was given for service and redelivered on 06/03/2007 and that car was running in good condition without any defect. When the complainant took the car for accidental repairs on 14/05/2007 and after attending to the defects redelivered. Complainant met with an accident and took the car for accidental repair to them. Once again on 22/06/2007 and on 04/01/2008 the same was repaired and redelivered. The complainant took the car with specific complaint of problem in the AC only on 01/06/2009 i.e after two years three months after it was purchased and when the car had run 66,763 kms. That he replaced AC compressor on a goodwill basis on the request of the complainant and it also repaired free of cost. When the complainant took the car again on 12/06/2009 to them AC fan was checked and found water had entered into the car was to be cleaned, accordingly car was cleaned, mats were dried and redelivered on 18/06/2009. That on 24/06/2009, complainant took the car once again seeking certain repairs to AC and by that time the car had run 67,275 kms and attended and found that the car was running in good condition. The complainant took the car to them with regard to the problem in the AC on 01/06/2009, 12/06/2009 and 24/06/2009 and earlier to that, the complainant had no complaints about the functioning of the AC and stating that the complainant after running the car for more than 2½ years and running it for 67,275 kms has come up with this allegation and therefore denying all these allegations has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> Second Op in his version denying all the allegations of the complainant contended that the complainant had approached him on 03/03/2008 for general service and on few occasions but did not make any complaint about the defect in the AC. This Op further referring to general service done to the complainant’s car on 06/05/2008 and 02/08/2008 and some other check ups he did at that time has denied any deficiency in the service done through repairs and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of the RC book, a copy of tax invoice in respect of certain spare parts purchased during servicing of the car and few more invoices with a copy of job card dated 24/06/2009 and copy of legal notice he got issued to Op No.1. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the AC fitted to his car was having manufacturing defect and he is entitled for replacement of the car itself for the defect in the AC<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: On going through the materials we have referred to above in brief we find no dispute in this complainant having had purchased SKODA Car from the first Op on 05/01/2007. In the entire complaint and also in the affidavit evidence of the complainant we do not find any grievance of the complaint in he having had found any defect in the car or any problem he faced in using the car except the allegations of the defect in the AC. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant admittedly confined to the non-functioning or mal functioning of the AC fitted to his car.<br /> <br /> It is alleged by the complainant that from the date of purchase of the AC in the vehicle it was not working properly. That means right from day one according to him the AC provided in the car is not functioning property. Op No.1 in his version and also in the affidavit evidence has contended that the complainant took his car for the free service and on 05/03/2007 and took it back on 06/03/2007 after service and it was running in a good condition did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not denied this contention of the first Op. The complainant surprisingly has not produced free service job cards that the Ops had issued to him as and when free service were got done to the car. Therefore, if there had been any problem in the AC from day one, the complainant would not have failed to complain to the Ops about the problems in the AC. The complainant has produced workshop invoice of 19/05/2007 in which it is evident that free services were all over by that time and he had got the service and replacement done on payment. In this invoice it is found that AC blower was cleaned and though it is mentioned as chargeable but Op No.1 has stated as a goodwill he did not charge for it. Here we should bear in mind that the car by that time had run 16,191 Kms. The complainant has produced another tax invoice dated 04/08/2007 under which Air Filter found to have been replaced by charging Rs.100/- on that date. Then the next workshop invoice is of 28/07/2007 on which date filter found to have been replaced by charging for it but it is not clear whether it is an AC filter or oil filter of the car and the car had run 26,474 Kms by that time. Then the next invoice produced by the complainant is 19/01/2008 on which date AC Pollen filter was cleaned by charging Rs.150/- and as on that day car had run 39,627 Kms. Then we have another invoice of the workshop dated 19/08/2008 on which date AC fan was replaced free of cost and the car had run 57,777 Kms, then on 02/06/2009 AC compressor was replaced and found it was also replaced free of cost and car by that time had run 66,763 kms. Then lastly the complainant left the car with Op No.1 on 24/06/2009 with a complaint for check for AC not working and after 6 Kms run it will on, by that time the complainant had run the car 67,275 Kms. These are all the documents that the complainant has produced to substantiate his contention that the AC fitted to his car was having manufacturing defects and therefore the car is to be replaced.<br /> <br /> The complainant except by saying that the AC fitted to his car was having manufacturing defect has not produced any expert opinion or evidence to prove the said allegation. The complainant it appears on the basis of the fact of cleaning the filter, replacement of the compressor and with the allegation that the AC starts functioning after the car had run 06 to 10 Kms claimed to have proved the defect in the AC and to draw inference on the basis of such allegations and for replacement of the car. First of all, we find fun in the claim of the complainant in asking for replacement of the car itself for the defect if any in the AC. Because AC fitted in the car is not an inseparable part of the engine which either affects the smooth running of the engine or running of the car. AC is an additional fitting is a separate component. If grieved to the complainant can only ask for replacement of the AC but not the car itself. Therefore, the prayer for the replacement of the car is redundant. Then coming to the allegations of the complainant about defect in the AC is concerned as rightly pointed out by the first Op the complainant has not proved having had complained to the Ops about any defect in the AC when he gave the car for free services, that itself speaks to falsehood of the complainant that the AC from the day one is mal functioning. As per the document produced by the complainant for the first time on 19/05/2007 the AC blower was cleaned and we should also bear in mind here by that time warranty period had expired and such cleaning and other services were chargeable. So cleaning of AC blower is not for any manufacturing defect but for servicing it of its use for considerable time. Therefore, when car had run 16,191 kms then the blower had been cleaned on that day which is nothing but a usual service and not any defect. Similarly on 04/08/2007 Air Filter was replaced which was costing Rs.400/- that replacement was because of wear and tear. Then on 19/01/2008 AC pollen filter was cleaned and cleaning is nothing but periodical service and when the AC was used till the vehicle had run 39,627 Kms it is quite natural, such periodical cleaning of the AC also is a part of that servicing. Then on 19/08/2008 AC fan was replaced probably due to some defect in the fan if there was that defect in the fan earlier the complainant could have asked for replacement. Therefore, when the car had run for 57,777 kms we can think of the life of the AC also requiring replacement and that too it has been done by the Ops free of cost. It is not the complainant’s case, after that replacement the AC continued to mal function. The complainant thereafter did not make any complaint of defect in the AC. Then on 02/06/2009 AC compressor was replaced that too has been done by the Op free of cost and the car was used for running 66,763 kms, then the last job sheet is of 24/06/2007 by that time, the car had run 67,725 kms and if there were to be any problem in the AC it can not be said that it was due to manufacturing defect. By this time more than 2 ½ years had lapsed and car was used for running more than 67,000 kms. The complainant himself has admitted that he wanted luxurious facilities therefore purchased this luxury car that means to say he was using this Air Conditioner in the car, at all time and if it was used till the car had run more than 67,000 Kms. It is quite natural that some mal functioning and even replacement of certain parts is inevitable and that can not be said as manufacturing defect. The complainant with the knowledge of these facts and maximum use now has come with the complaint of manufacturing defect in the AC which is not bonafides but it is a malafide one. Therefore, the complaint in our view has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the AC fitted to the car and therefore, complaint is bereft of facts and is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 29th July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />