Haryana

StateCommission

A/1103/2015

GENERAL MOTORS INDIA PVT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINEET MISHRA - Opp.Party(s)

CHANDERHAS YADAV

17 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                First Appeal No.1103 of 2015

                                                                Date of Institution:22.12.2015

                                                                    Date of Decision:17.10.2016

 

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., Chandrapura Industrial Estates, Halol-389350, District Panchmehal, Gujrat through Sh. Rajesh Pawan, DGM  Legal, authorized signatory, GMT Pvt. Ltd

…Appellant

                                      Versus

1.      Vineet Mishra resident of House No.505, Sabzaar apartments,  GH-4, Sector45, Faridabad, presently residing at Flat No.0706, Tower T-8, RPC Savana, Sector-88, Kheri Road, Faridabad-121002.

2.      Regent Automobile Pvt. Ltd. 14/3, Main Mathura Road,  opposite Havel’s Faridabad-121003 (through the MD, Chairman/GM/Managers)

 

                                                                                      …Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:     Mr. C.H Yadav, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                   Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate counsel for respondent No.2.

 

                                                ORDER

 

Mr.  R.K. BISHNOI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased car in question from opposite party No.2 (in short ‘OP’)  on 14.02.2013 for Rs.7,49,877/-. After covering 126 KMs. and first service it starting giving problems which are as under:-

“(a)    Cowl top noise:- There is a continuous rattling  sound in the vehicle while its driven. The service centre detected it due to cowl top tray and carried out below repairs/ changes:

1. On 05.04.2013 a new tray has been ordered to be fixed in vehicle as previous repairs had failed.
2. 11.04.2013 new tray was fixed. The problem appeared again same day and reported to service station.
3. 15.04.2013 repair was done again in the vehicle. The problem appeared again same day and reported to service station.
4. 18.04.2013 again repair was done. Problem appeared on 20.04.203 and reported to service station.
5. 21.042013 repair was done. Problem reported to service station and the company again on 24.04.2013.
6. 25.04.203 the workshop staff visited the office of complainant and repair was done. Problem reported again on 26.04.2013.
7. 27.04.2013 again repair was done. Problem reported again on 06.05.2013.
8. 07.05.2013 again repair was done in the office of complainant. The problem reported again.
9. 10.05.2013 the complainant met Mr. Rahul Katyal ZAM-GM at regent automobiles office. The vehicle was inspected again and repair carried out under his expert supervision. The problem again appeared on 13.05.2013 and reported to service station and the company.
10. 16.05.2013 the noise was recorded and files sent to GMI.
11. 17.05.2013 problem analyzed by Mr. Gurnaib Singh, technical expert of GM Gurgaon office and repair was carried out again. Problem appeared and reported again on 28.05.2013.
12. 31.05.2013 problem analyzed by Mr. Vijay, Technical Expert from GM Pune Plant and repair done again. Problem resurfaced and reported again on 27.09.2013.
13. Realizing that the problem is non repairable, complainant sent register letter to Mr. Lowell Paddock (President and Managing Director of GMI) on 27.09.2013 requesting him for refund of the amount spent on the vehicle to which, complainant received a reply from the company on 17.10.2013 asking him to send the vehicle for repair once again and assuring that the problem will not recur.
14. 18.10.2013 sent the car for repairs after GMI’s response that parts are available for repair and the problems will not recur. Turned back as the parts were not available.
15. 23.10.2013 part changed again

Even thereafter, problems persisted and were brought to notice of Ops which were as under:-

(c)     “The third problem in vehicle was noise from window, glasses and doors.

(d)     The 4^th problem in the vehicle was mileage problem.  Whereas GMI claims the mileage of the vehicle to be 22.1 Km/Ltr in all the advertisements, it actually does not give mileage above 15.5 Km/Ltr without A/C and 13 Km/Ltr with A/C. Several requests have been made to get the mileage checked but no response.

(e)     Although the engine the Car was changed on 13.09.2013 and new engine # 10FCZ1 31480099 was replaced but it was not got transferred in the RC by the respondents despite many requests. The complainant has been made an illegal occupant of the vehicle for last 5 months as laws require to have correct engine number on the registration certificate. Moreover, the insurance of the vehicle turns invalid with a different engine number. Actually this vehicle was a defected car or there in any fault of design  that’s why this vehicle creating problem”.

So many letters were written to OPs, but to no avail. They be directed to refund the price of vehicle alongwith interest and compensation for mental harassment etc.

2.      OPs filed reply, controverting his averments and alleged that there was no manufacturing defect in the car in question. Vehicle had already covered more than 13,000 KMs. upto 23.10.2013 and was still in operation. Had there been manufacturing defect, the vehicle would not have remained in operation. The problems pointed out by complainant were normal wear and tear. As and when he brought vehicle the same was repaired to his satisfaction. Mostly complainant pointed out following problems:-

“From 3,926 Kms. To 7,000 Kms.      -           The complainant was raising a    

(Approx)                                                          problem of Noise from the front 

side of the vehicle

From 7,000 Kms to 13,000 Kms.       -           Engine Problem to get replacement

                                                                        of engine.

From 11,385 Kms. To 13,000 Kms.   -           Heater Plug Light Glowing check;  

Glow Plug/ Horn Sound/ Under Body  Noise/Suspension Check.

From 13,000 Kms. Onwards              -           Mileage Problem, Noise from 

Window, Glasses and doors.

•       Endorsement of new Engine 

Number on RC.

 

There was no evidence on file to show that there was manufacturing defect. Objections about locus-standi, concealment of true facts, using car for commercial purpose etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint and directed Ops as under:-

“Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to refund, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.7,49,877/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of amount to the complainant and after receipt of said amount, the complainant shall return the car in question to opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay, jointly and severally Rs.5500/- on account of mental tension and harassment as well as Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved, therefrom OP No.1 has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that complainant has not produced any evidence on the file showing that there was  manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He has not produced any expert witness. Even otherwise warranty was for change of part and not vehicle. Complainant did not come to OP No.2 for endorsement of engine number in Registration Certificate (in short ‘RC’). Learned District Forum wrongly came to conclusion that there was manufacturing defect, so impugned order dated 24.11.2015 set aside. He placed reliance upon opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in “Suresh Chand Jain Vs. Service Engineer and Sales Supervisor” 2011 (2) CLT, 273, Maruti Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Atul Bhardwaj, 2009 (2) CLT, 421, Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Bachachi Ram Dangwal, 2009 (3) CLT, 128, R. Bhaskar Vs. D.N. Udani, 2006 (3) CLT, 606 and Maruti Udhyog Ltd. Vs. Hansmukh Lakhmichand, 2009 (4) CLT, 139, opinion of State Commission, Chandigarh in Tarsem Kumar Garg Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., 2007 (3) CLT 57  and Vikram Bajaj Vs. Hind Motors, 2009 (1) CLT, 618.

7.      This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of defects mentioned in complaint as well as in reply it is clear that this vehicle was giving problem since from beginning. Complainant was using it after repairs as per assurance of OP No.2. When a person gets his vehicle repaired and is assured by repairer then naturally he will use the same. If it gives problem again then there is no other alternative except to come to repairer and same is the situation in the present case. Had there been no manufacturing defect, OP would not have replaced engine. Engine replacement is sufficient ground to presume that there was manufacturing defect. Even otherwise steering was also hard, check glow plug etc. were also glowing when there is indicator problem how consumer can drive vehicle. Engine, steering etc. are major parts and it could not be opined that they were minor defects. If steering jams any mishap can take place. So it can be presumed that there was a manufacturing defect. It is well settled proposition of law that history of repair of any vehicle can be taken into consideration about manufacturing defect and it is not necessary that there should always be an expert report. These views are fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd. V. col. S.K.Gawari, II (2016) CPJ 381 (NC). Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts. Appellants cannot derive any benefit on the cite case laws. In those cases either the vehicle was brought for minor defects or there was no problem after removal of defective parts, but in the present case it is still persisting. However, plea of complainant about change of engine number in RC cannot be accepted because he has failed to show that he ever went to OP for issuing new bill  and OPs refused to do so. As a sequel to aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 24.11.2015 cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.      Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

October, 17^th, 2016                             Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K. Bishnoi

                                                            Member                                  Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench                            Addl. Bench

 

 

R.K.