BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.168 of 2015
Date of Instt. 23.04.2015
Date of Decision : 14.09.2016
Anjalika Jindal wife of Ashwani Jindal, R/o H.No.253, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited, 3, North Avenue, Level ¾, Maker Maxity, 3rd Floor, Solver Utopia, A-Wing, Cardinal Gracious Road, Andheri Kurla Road(E) Chakala-400099, Maharastra through its Managing Director/Director.
2.Lally Motors India Private Limited, GT Road, Opp.Lucky Dhaba, Jalandhar-144005.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Balraj Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Sh.Karan Seth Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased Volkswagen Polo diesel car from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 29.6.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,88,691/- having registration No.PB-08-CP-5415. The said vehicle had warranty of two years. The complainant also got extended warranty by making payment of proper fee. As such, extended warranty of the vehicle was upto 28.6.2016. The complainant submitted that the vehicle used to create excessive noise and suffer from sudden breakdowns. The defects were brought to the notice of OP No.2 who assured that these defects will fade away with the passage of time. During period from January 2014 to February 2015, the vehicle in question manifested various inherent and manufacturing defects and has been frequently reported to extensive repairs at the workshop OP No.2 as well as at Chandigarh workshop of OP No.1 but despite extensive repairs, the vehicle did not work properly. On 22.1.2014 the car suffered from major defect in its fuel pump and the OP No.2 had to replace the same. On 26.1.2014 the vehicle suffered problem of sudden breakdowns and of fuel pump and the vehicle had to be kept at Chandigarh workshop for more than 17 days and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.2.2014. Again on 6.3.2014, there was problem in the vehicle with the ball joint of car excel. Again on 14.8.2014, the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repair of oil chamber cracks. On 5.12.2014, there was defect in gear shift and the vehicle was kept at the workshop of OP No.2 upto 24.12.2014 and on 24.12.2014 when the vehicle was delivered to the complainant, it started trembling and after going half kilometer, the vehicle again broke down and as such it was kept at the workshop of OP No.2 till 8.1.2015 and the problem was reported of fuel injector and one of the fuel injector was replaced. The complainant further submitted that on 5.1.2015, fuel injector has already been replaced and the OP No.2 had charged Rs.1000/- for filling up the diesel in the car. The complainant used to fill-up fuel at random from the filling stations from different companies in different areas. The OP No.2 has wrongly started finding fault with the fuel/diesel used in the car instead of looking at the main problem of inherent/manufacturing defect. The complainant further submitted that on 7.2.2015 when she was going from Jalandhar to Ludhiana, the same problem occurred again and OP No.2 workshop found the problem with the fuel injector and the OP No.2 raised a bill for charging fuel injector. Whereas the vehicle was still under warranty and asked the complainant to pay for the replacement of the fuel injector within the period of extended warranty. The complainant submitted that that such frequent and extensive repairs in such a short span of time prove that the vehicle in question had manufacturing/ inherent defect. As such, the vehicle required replacement or change of engine in the car in question but the OP neither replaced the car in question nor changed the engine of the car. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to replace the car with new one or to replace the engine of the car in question with new one. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsels and filed a written replies pleading that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question but the complainant always was negligent and careless to keep regular maintenance and service of the car. Good and defect free running car is evident from the fact that the first service was got done on 22.3.2013 when the vehicle had already run 18664 kms and at that time no defect or any complaint regarding the working and running of the car was reported by the complainant. The vehicle was purchased on 29.6.2012 and was brought for first service on 22.3.2013 when the vehicle had already run 18664 kms. Whereas the first service was required at 15000 kms. The second service was due at 30,000 kms but the complainant brought the vehicle for second service with complaint of fuel pump on 22.1.2014 when the vehicle had already run 39741 kms. The complainant continued running the vehicle without service and proper maintenance. As such, fuel filter of the vehicle got choked due to delay in service. However, OP No.2 replaced the fuel pump under warranty and without any charge from the complainant. Thereafter, there was part failure and the same was replaced without any charge at Chandigarh workshop. On 6.3.2014, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.2 with axel joint displaced due to some external hit of the vehicle. The OP No.2 again did the job free of charge under warranty. Thereafter, the warranty was also extended. On 30.6.2014, the car had met with an accident and the same was repaired by OP No.2. Again on 16.8.2014, the vehicle in question met with an accident. Resultantly, its oil sump was damaged and the same was also repaired by OP No.2. At that time, the service of the vehicle was due at 45,000 kms but the vehicle of the complainant had already run 51882 kms. The service engineer of OP No.2 advised the complainant that the service is already overdue but the complainant denied the servicing of the vehicle. So, no filter was changed and the complainant was duly apprised of the position of the vehicle that denial of service at that juncture may result in major default in the working of the engine of the vehicle but inspite of that the complainant did not opt for the service of the vehicle and the complainant continued running the vehicle without getting service done, as a result of which the problem in the injectors and fuel system of the vehicle arose. When the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the OP No.2 workshop, it was found that the complainant had also used adulterated fuel and she was informed in this regard vide letter dated 14.3.2015 as well as through emails. As per terms and conditions of the warranty of the vehicle, the company shall not be responsible for any vehicle damage which is caused by low quality fuel, inadequate servicing work, etc. The complainant did not adhere to the service schedule and used adulterated fuel. Therefore, the fuel system of the vehicle was again damaged on 10.2.2015. The complainant was shown by company's engineer that the fuel filled in the vehicle is full of adulteration and impurities. The complainant was repeatedly informed by OP No.2 that the injector and high pressure pump need to be replaced and the said job can be done on payment basis but the complainant has not responded to the various requests of the OP No.2. So, the vehicle is lying with the OP No.2 workshop and not taken by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the parking charges to OP No.2. There is no manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. The car in question has already met with accidents twice and even the complainant got the insurance claim from insurance company but he did not mention these facts in the complaint. Once the car has been damaged in accident and got accidental repairs, the company is not liable to replace the vehicle in question.
3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and closed her evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP19 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.OP2/A and Ex.OP2/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPO2/1 to Ex.OP2/20 and mark X and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Volkswagen Polo diesel car from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 29.6.2012 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.5,88,691/- having registration No.PB-08-CP-5415. The said vehicle had warranty of two years. The complainant also got extended warranty by making payment of proper fee. As such, extended warranty of the vehicle was upto 28.6.2016. The complainant submitted that the vehicle used to create excessive noise and suffer from sudden breakdowns. The defects were brought to the notice of OP No.2 who assured that these defects will fade away with the passage of time. During period from January 2014 to February 2015, the vehicle in question manifested various inherent and manufacturing defects and has been frequently reported to extensive repairs at the workshop OP No.2 as well as at Chandigarh workshop of OP No.1 but despite extensive repairs, the vehicle did not work properly. On 22.1.2014 the car suffer from major defect in its fuel pump and the OP No.2 had to replace the same. On 26.1.2014 the vehicle suffered problem of sudden breakdowns and of fuel pump and the vehicle had to be kept at Chandigarh workshop for more than 17 days and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 12.2.2014. Again on 6.3.2014, there was problem in the vehicle with the ball joint of car excel. Again on 14.8.2014, the vehicle was brought to the workshop for repair of oil chamber cracks. On 5.12.2014, there was defect in gear shift and the vehicle was kept at the workshop of OP No.2 upto 24.12.2014 and on 24.12.2014 when the vehicle was delivered to the complainant, it started trembling and after going half kilometer, the vehicle again breakdown and as such it was kept at the workshop of OP No.2 till 8.1.2015 and the problem was reported of fuel injector and one of the fuel injector was replaced. The complainant further alleged that on 5.1.2015, fuel injector have already been replaced and the OP No.2 had charged Rs.1000/- for filling up the diesel in the car. The complainant used to fill-up fuel at random from the filling stations from different companies in different areas. The OP No.2 has wrongly started finding fault with the fuel/diesel used in the car instead of looking at the main problem of inherent/manufacturing defect. The complainant further alleged that on 7.2.2015 when she was going from Jalandhar to Ludhiana, the same problem occurred again and OP No.2 workshop found the problem with the fuel injector and the OP No.2 raised a bill for charging fuel injector. Whereas the vehicle was still under warranty and asked the complainant to pay for the replacement of the fuel injector within the period of extended warranty. Counsel for the complainant submitted that such frequent and extensive repairs in such a short span of time prove that the vehicle in question had manufacturing/inherent defect. As such, the vehicle required replacement or change of engine in the car in question but the OP neither replaced the car in question nor changed the engine of the car. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question but the complainant always negligent and careless to keep regular maintenance and service of the car. Good and defect free running car is evident from the fact that the first service was got done on 22.3.2013 when the vehicle had already run 18664 kms as per retail invoice/job sheet Ex.OP2/1 and at that time no defect or any complaint regarding the working and running of the car was reported by the complainant. The vehicle was purchased on 29.6.2012 and was brought for first service on 22.3.2013 when the vehicle had already run 18664 kms. Whereas the first service was required at 15000 kms. The second service was due at 30,000 kms but the complainant brought the vehicle for second service with complaint of fuel pump on 22.1.2014 when the vehicle had already run 39741 kms as is evident from job sheet/retail invoice Ex.OP2/2. The complainant continued running the vehicle without service and proper maintenance. As such, fuel filter of the vehicle got choked due to delay in service. However, the OP No.2 replaced the fuel pump under warranty and without any charge from the complainant. Thereafter, there was part failure and the same was replaced without any charge at Chandigarh workshop. On 6.3.2014 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.2 with axel joint displaced due to some external hit of the vehicle. The OP No.2 again did the job free of charge under warranty. Thereafter, the warranty was also extended. On 30.6.2014, the car had met with an accident and the same was repaired by OP No.2. Again on 16.8.2014, the vehicle in question met with an accident. Resultantly, its oil sump was damaged and the same was also repaired by OP No.2. At that time, the service of the vehicle was due at 45,000 kms but the vehicle of the complainant had already run 51882 kms. The service engineer of OP No.2 advised the complainant that the service is already overdue but the complainant denied the servicing of the vehicle. So, no filter was changed and the complainant was duly apprised of the position of the vehicle that denial of service at that juncture may result in major default in the working of the engine of the vehicle but inspite of that complainant did not opt for the service of the vehicle and the complainant continued running the vehicle without getting service done, as a result of which the problem in the injectors and fuel system of the vehicle arose. When the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the OP No.2 workshop, it was found that the complainant had also used adulterated fuel and she was informed in this regard vide letter dated 14.3.2015 Ex.OP2/10 as well as through emails Ex.OP2/11 to Ex.OP2/13. As per terms and conditions of the warranty of the vehicle, the company shall not be responsible for any vehicle damage which is caused by low quality fuel, inadequate servicing work, etc. The complainant did not adhere to the service schedule and used adulterated fuel. Therefore, the fuel system of the vehicle was again damaged on 10.2.2015. The complainant was shown by company's engineer that the fuel filled in the vehicle is full of adulteration and impurities. The complainant was repeatedly informed by OP No.2 that the injector and high pressure pump need to be replaced and the said job can be done on payment basis but the complainant has not responded to the various requests of the OP No.2. So, the vehicle is lying with the OP No.2 workshop and not taken by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay the parking charges to OP No.2. There is no manufacturing defect in vehicle in question. The car in question has already met with accidents twice and even the complainant got the insurance claim from insurance company but he did not mention these facts in the complaint. Once the car has been damaged in accident and got accidental repairs, the company is not liable to replace the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that under these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Volkswagen Polo diesel car bearing registration No.PB-08-CP-5414 from OP No.2 vide invoice dated 29.6.2012 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.5,88,691/-. The vehicle had warranty of two years and the complainant also got extended warranty upto 28.6.2016. As per the history of the car in question produced by the OP No.2, the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop of OP No.2 for the first time on 22.3.2013 when the vehicle had already run 18664 kms, whereas first service of the vehicle was required at 15,000 kms and at that time no defect or any complaint regarding the working and functioning of the car was reported by the complainant to OP No.2. Similarly, second service of the vehicle was due at 30,000 kms but the complainant brought the vehicle to the service station of OP No.2 on 22.1.2014 with complaint of fuel pump, when the vehicle had already run 39741 kms as per job sheet Ex.OP2/2. At that time fuel filter of the vehicle got choked due to delay in service because the complainant continued running the vehicle without service and proper maintenance, without charging any amount from the complainant. Thereafter, there was part failure of the vehicle and the vehicle was taken to Chandigarh workshop of Volkswagen Company as per retail invoice Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 where that part was replaced and that too without any charge from the complainant. Thereafter, on 6.3.2014 the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.2 with axel joint displaced due to some external hit of the vehicle and the OP No.2 again did the job free of charge under warranty as per retail invoice Ex.OP2/4. Thereafter, the warranty was extended as per extended warranty certificate Ex.C3 for two years. In June, 2014, the vehicle in question met with an accident and the same was repaired by OP No.2 as is evident from retail invoice dated 30.6.2014 Ex.OP2/6 and the complainant had taken claim from the insurance company as stated by OP No.2 and the complainant has concealed this fact from this Forum in this complaint. Again in August 2014, the vehicle in question met with an accident. Resultantly, its oil sump was damaged and the same was also repaired by OP No.2. At that time, the service of the vehicle was due at 45,000 kms but the vehicle of the complainant had already run 51882 kms as is evident from the retail invoice Ex.OP2/7. The service engineer of OP No.2 advised the complainant that the service is already overdue but the complainant did not opt for the service of the vehicle. So, no filter was changed and the complainant was duly apprised of the position of the vehicle that denial of service at that juncture may result in major default in the working of the engine of the vehicle but inspite of that the complainant did not opt for the service of the vehicle and she continued running the vehicle without getting service done, as a result of which the problem in the injectors and fuel system of the vehicle arose and the vehicle automatically stopped. When the vehicle was brought by the complainant to the OP No.2 workshop, it was found that the complainant had used adulterated fuel and she was informed in this regard vide letter dated 14.3.2015 Ex.OP2/10 and through emails Ex.OP2/11 to Ex.OP2/13. As per terms and conditions of the warranty of the vehicle Ex.OP2/17, the company shall not be responsible for any vehicle damage which is caused by low quality fuel, inadequate servicing work, etc. All the above facts fully proved that the complainant did not adhere to the service schedule and used adulterated fuel, as a result of which fuel system of the vehicle in question again damaged on 10.2.2015. The complainant brought the vehicle in question to the OP No.2. Again, the complainant was shown by company's engineer that the fuel filled in the vehicle is full of adulteration and impurities. The complainant was repeatedly informed by OP No.2 that the injector and high pressure pump need to be replaced and the said job can be done on payment basis but the complainant did not respond to the requests of the OP No.2. The complainant neither agreed to get the vehicle repaired on payment basis nor took the vehicle from the workshop of OP No.2 and the vehicle has been lying with the OP No.2 workshop.
9. The complainant did not get the vehicle serviced at proper time and proper mileage, as a result of which the functioning of the vehicle was badly effected, fuel injectors were totally damaged which were replaced one after the other. The complainant failed to prove on record any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The car has already met with an accident twice and the complainant got the insurance claim from insurance company. The OP No.2 was, therefore, justified in asking the complainant that injector and high pressure pump need to be replaced and the said job can be done on payment basis. The complainant has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the warranty of the vehicle. So, parts of the vehicle were damaged due to lapse on the part of the complainant. Once the car was damaged in accident and it got accidental repairs, then the company is not liable to replace the same with new one. The OP No.2 was, therefore, justified in asking the complainant to get repairs of the vehicle in question done from OP No.2 on payment basis. It has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Commission in case Metro Motors Vs Krishan Lal and anr 2015(4) CPJ 22 that “the problem for which the vehicle broke down, was chocking of injectors which can neither be treated as manufacturing defect nor could be covered within warranty”. Similarly in the present case, the vehicle broke down due to chocking of injectors and that too due to fault on the part of the complainant because she did not get the vehicle serviced at proper time/mileage. So, it can not be treated as manufacturing defect nor can be covered within warranty. It has been held by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh State Commission in case Central Automobiles and ors Vs Simplex Engineering and Foundry Works Ltd 2004 (1) CPJ 374 that “where essential terms of warranty not complied with by complainant as free servicing of vehicle not availed within stipulated running limits, defects developed due to non servicing of vehicle within stipulated running limits and the vehicle broke down; It was held that the District Forum erred in allowing compliant. The order was set-aside”. It is admitted case of both the parties that on the first service, the vehicle was got serviced at 18664 kms when it was required to be got done at 15000 kms and there was no defect pointed out in the first service of the vehicle as is evident from the retail invoice Ex.OP2/1. It has been held by Hon'ble National Commission in case “Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd & ors Vs Bhawesh Narula” 2015(3) CLT 512 that where the consumer is alleging manufacturing defect, no expert report produced nor there is any proof of manufacturing defect in the car when the car had already run more than 7 months and covered about 16,000 kms without any problem. It was held that no manufacturing defect in the vehicle can be presumed”. In the present case, the vehicle has run 18664 kms at the time of first service and no defect or any complaint in the functioning of the vehicle was reported by the complainant to OP No.2. So, no manufacturing defect can be presumed in the vehicle in question.
10. In the light of above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant. The present complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
14.09.2016 Member President
