Complainant Vidushi Banta, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to replace the defective vehicle in question with new one and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to her, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she had purchased a vehicle of Volkswagen Vento 1.6 CR (MT)- Tredline bearing Chassis No.WVWC 12604CT039979, Engine No.CLN 194889 from the opposite party no.2 for Rs.8,65,500/- vide bill dated 25.6.2012. On 6.2.2013 some defects were occurred in the vehicle and she came to the Agency/Workshop of opposite party no.3 and told that there is noise in the steering of the vehicle in question. The said mechanics of the Agency enquired the problem after thorough check-up and returned back to the vehicle and asked her that problem has been solved by them, but the problem of noise in the Steering of the vehicle remained intact. She has hired the services of the opposite parties and as such she is consumer of the opposite parties. She has further pleaded that on 1.4.2013 and 21.5.2013 she went to the premises of the opposite party no.1 and made complaint regarding Noise in the Steering of the vehicle but all the times the mechanics of the opposite party no.1 failed to remove the defect. Similarly on 23rd August 2013, 7th September 2013, 4th October 2013, 12 November 2013, 19 November 2013 and 10.10.2013 she visited the premises of the opposite party no.1 and on 11.11.2013 the complainant visited the premises of the opposite party no.2 with the same defect of noise in the Steering of the vehicle in question, but all the times the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have failed to remove the defect occurred in the vehicle. Actually, the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and on account of that the same could not be removed by the authorized mechanics of the opposite parties. Her vehicle is within warranty, but even then the opposite parties have failed to replace the vehicle in question. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written replies through their counsels. Opposite party no.1 taking certain preliminary objections that of territorial jurisdiction and the allegations of the complainant are regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicles, which however are false, relates to opposite party no.2 from whom the complainant purchased the vehicle and to the opposite party no.3 which is the manufacturing company of the vehicle, as such the opposite party no.1 has unnecessarily been impleaded as party. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of opposite party, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits it was submitted that the complainant may have visited the opposite party no.1 for service. It is however submitted that no defect in the steering or any noise in the steering was detected. Even the inspection of the vehicle was arranged by calling the Service Engineer of the company, but no such defect was found. It was further submitted that all the vehicle of opposite Party no.3 Company are of good quality and there is no question of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, therefore, the question of replacement of vehicle does not arise. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and lastly the present complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.2 in its written statement taking the preliminary objections that those intricate and contentions question of fact and law are involved in the present complaint which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence, which cannot be adjudicated by way of summary procedure, so enacted before this Hon’ble Forum. In this case the complainant has alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle. To prove this lengthy piece of evidence is required, which is not a summary procedure and therefore a case is to be filed before the appropriate court of law; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction since no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld.Forum and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed with special costs u/s 26 of the CPA, 1986. On merits, it was submitted that in the absence of any expert opinion it can not be said that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party no.3 in its written statement taking the preliminary objection that of maintainability of the complaint. On merits, all allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. Opposite party no.4 in its written statement taking the preliminary objections that of complainant has done nothing more than a deliberate and willful attempt to extract monies from opposite party no.4 on false and frivolous grounds. The complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hand and has deliberately suppressed the material facts such as accidental damages caused to the said vehicle due to reckless and negligent actions of the representatives of the complainant on record which clearly establish the malafide intentions of the complainant and this complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite party no.4 also challenged the territorial jurisdiction. On merits, it was submitted that complainant kept on visiting the workshops of opposite party no.1& 2 with a repeated complaint of noise from the front side of the vehicle. If this Hon’ble Forum peruses the service records of the said vehicle it will see that in order to satisfy the complainant the representatives of the workshop repeatedly tried to find the said problem and changed various parts of the said vehicle which can attribute to such alleged noise from the front side but every time the complainant kept coming back with no valid supporting and futile allegations. It has been further stated that as and when the complainant approached the workshops all the benefits of warranty policy provided by the opposite party no.4 in spite of all these efforts of the representatives of the workshop and giving the complainant all the benefits of the warranty the complainant repeatedly kept on visiting the workshops with same complaint wherein no such noise was observed by the representative of the workshop. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence.
8. Col.Retd. Anirudh Uttam General Manager of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence. Evidence on behalf of opposite party no.2 was closed by order vide Forum’s order dated 20.2.2015.
9. Sh.Pawan Jain, Manager Legal for opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 and Ex.OP-3/3 and closed the evidence.
10. Counsel for the opposite party no.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harshavardan Jogdand Ex.OP.4/1 and closed the evidence.
11. Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and the learned counsels for the litigants have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint.
12. We observe that the complainants’ sought after relief comprises of replacement of the Car in question on the grounds of inherent ‘Steering-Noise’ defect in the absence of any expert opinion duly produced on record, as has been duly requisite for such reliefs. Moreover, the reported defects etc have been regularly attended to by the OP1 workshop as and when approached by the complainant. The mere reporting of some repeated ‘noise’ in the absence of any technical support and simple multiple/repeated visits to the workshop do not (in themselves alone) warrant for the replacement of the vehicle in question, as per the settled law. Moreover, the ‘steering noise’ does not mean anything ‘substantial’ in the absence of support explanation and corroboration that was not even attempted during the entire course of the complaints’ proceedings. Moreover, the OP’s counsels have expressed the willingness of their clients to still remove the defects in totality as and when brought out/complained to them and that shows their well meaning intentions and good customer service to their patron consumers.
13. In the light of the all above, we dispose of the present complaint by directing the present complainant to deliver the Vehicle in question at the OP1 or the OP2 workshop with the complete list of the detailed defects etc within 10 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and who in turn are directed to remove all these defects and deliver back the Vehicle to the owner complainant within 7 days thereof with all the reported defects duly removed along with the requisite ‘certificate of fitness’ etc.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May 11, 2015 Member
*MK*
