Haryana

Karnal

110/13

Ravinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manger SDAK Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Abhey Sahu

25 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 110 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 27.02.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 25.05.2017

 

Ravinder Pal Singh son of Shri Bale Ram, resident of House no.2474, ward no.9, Rajender Nagar, Gohana road, Rohtak.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. The Manager, SDAK Automobile Pvt. Ltd., G.T.Road, Karnal.

2. Skoda Auto, A-1/1, MIDC, Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad-431201.

 

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……. Member

                   Sh. Anil Sharma………Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri Abhay Sahu Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Vinod Dogra Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased Skoda Yeti Car from opposite parties in the month of 2011, for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. There was problem of engine in the said car from the very beginning and the same used to stop at once running on road due to some technical problem or manufacturing defect. He complained repeatedly to opposite party no.1, but every time he was assured that the defect was removed, whereas the defect was never removed. Lastly, the car was required by the opposite parties for checking and removal of the defect at the premises of their service provider i.e. Giriraj Motors at Gurgaon on 8.9.2012. He was assured that the car will be restored to its roadworthy condition, but the car was delivered to him after 2 months 13 days on 21.11.2012 and travelling dues were paid for that period. However, the same defect occurred in the car on 20.02.2013. The opposite parties required the car for checking and removal of defect at the premises of Giriraj Motors at Gurgaon and the same has been lying there since then. Opposite partiess neither removed the defect nor replaced the car. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice upon opposite party no.1, but the opposite party no.1 refused to receive the same. Therefore, the acts and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is not legally maintainable and that the complaint is false and frivolous.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that after purchasing the car from opposite party no.1, the complainant brought the car to the workshop of opposite party no.1, firstly on 27.6.2013 for the purpose of wheel alignment, wheel balancing, checking of rear wiper, Monsoon campaign and general checking. The Engineer of opposite party no.1 got done the wheel alignment and wheel balancing done apart from free service of the car. The complainant again brought the car to the workshop of opposite party no.1 in an accidental condition on 14.11.2011. The accidental repair of the car was done to his satisfaction. Thereafter, the complainant never came to the workshop of opposite party no.1. Whenever the complainant visited the workshop of opposite party no.1, he was  properly attended and prompt services were provided to him. The opposite party no.1 never directed the complainant to take his car to Giriraj Motors Gurgaon, as alleged.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C22 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of  Tarsem Singla Director Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased one Skoda Yeti Car in the month of March, 2011. As per the case of the complainant there was problem in the engine of the car due to manufacturing defect which could not be rectified by the opposite parties. Thought he car was taken to the workshop a number of times. The opposite parties have submitted that there was no defect in the engine of the car and complaint of the complainant was always attended and necessary defects were removed whenever the car was reported in the workshop.

7.                The complainant has produced the copies of the service history record of the car Ex.C9 to Ex.C21. Apart from that the report of Raj Kumar Khaterpal Mechanical Engineer Government approved Surveyor and Loss Assessor has also been produced as Ex.C22. A perusal of the report indicates that the Mechanical Engineer considered the service history record of the car of the complainant and opined that the car had run around 150000 Kms and the same had to go for major part replacement on warranty as well as on payment, because of manufacturing defects. The staff/technicians working at the dealers point were not well trained, since they were using all the time hit and trail method. The service history of the car show that on 3.4.2012 when the car had run 65081 Kms, all the four injectors were replaced by the authorized workshop of the company under warranty, on the complaint of the complainant that the car was not pulling on pressing accelerator paddle. On 8.9.2012 when the car had run 94490 Kms, the complainant complained that the car was not pulling on pressing the accelerator and air conditioner was not working properly. Four injection unit, air conditioner compressor, safety switch for CE and drier insert with MO under warranty were replaced. On 24.11.2012 when the car had run 103605 Kms again the complainant made complaint that the car was not pulling on pressing accelerator, therefore, Cylinder head cover was replaced under warranty. On 20.2.2013 when the car had run 121461 Kms again the complaint of the complainant was the same that the car was not pulling on pressing accelerator. The repairer replaced fly wheel, fuel rail, return line, injection unit, high pressure pump, fuel delivery unit ‘A’ filter element and fuel pump under warranty. On 19.8.2013 when the car had run 130061 Kms necessary repairs were carried out in the car for removal of the complaint regarding not pulling of pressing accelerator. On 31.10.2013 when the car had run 133843 Kms fuel rail, injection unit, high pressure pump, fuel delivery unit, high pressure pump and other components were replaced on charging basis. On 11.6.2014, when the car had run 150777 Kms, the same was taken to M/s Giriraj Motors, Gurgaon with the same complaint that inspite of pressing the accelerator the car was not pulling, but the workshop closed the file with a remark that adulterated fuel was being used and the car was not repaired. The car has been lying there since then.

8.                Thus, from the service history record, it is emphatically clear that after covering about 65000 Kms, the problem in the engine of the car developed, due to which the same was not pulling despite pressing accelerator. Injectors were replaced thrice. Cylinder head cover was also replaced and flywheel and other parts of the engine were also replaced under warranty. However, the defect in the engine could not be rectified. Complainant had to shift the car to the authorized workshop of the company times and again for the same defect. No doubt the car was taken to the workshop by the complainant five times for accidental repairs, but none of those repairs related to the engine. Therefore, the service history record lends support to the opinion of the Mechanical Engineer that there was manufacturing defect in the car due to which major parts were replaced under warranty as well as again its payment. The opposite parties have not produced any opinion of Mechanical Expert to rebut the report Ex.C22 of Mechanical Engineer, who inspected the car and perused the service history record before giving his opinion. It is also important to point out that the authorized workshop of the company refused to repair the car on 11.6.2014 on the ground that adulterated fuel was being used, but no report of any laboratory has been produced, on the basis of which such opinion was formed. In the absence of any cogent evidence, such plea of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the evidence of the complainant on record is sufficient to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the car, which could not be removed by the authorized workshop of the company despite the fact that the car was taken to the workshop repeatedly.

9.                The car had run 150757 Kms within period of three years and four months. As per report of the Mechanical Expert based upon service history record the car remained at the workshop for about one year three months and nineteen days. The complainant had to visit the authorized workshop of the company a number of times for getting repaired the car for one of the other problem. Admittedly, the car has been lying on the workshop of M/s Giriraj Motors, Gurgaon since 27.6.2014. The car is lying in open, therefore, the  parts must have rusted and the life of consumable items might have expired and if the engine of the car gets started, that would cause unnecessary wear and tear of the engine parts. Huge money is required to make the car in running condition. Therefore, in such a situation, the car would not be able to function properly even after replacement of the engine. The company may not be manufacturing the same model of the car these days. Moreover, this fact also cannot be lot sight of that the complainant had extensively used the car for running the same for 150757Kms within a period of two years and got accidental repairs done five times during period of three years and four months, therefore, it would not be justified to direct the opposite parties to replace the car with a new one or to pay the entire price of the car for which the complainant had purchased. However, looking into all such facts and circumstances it would be reasonable and justified to direct the opposite party no.2 to pay 50% of the price of the car to the complainant.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite party no.2 the manufacturer to pay 50% of the cost of the car to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear, if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period, then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of this order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:25.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                             (Veena Rani)   (Anil Sharma)

                               Member                    Member