Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/59/2018

R.Sudhakar,S/o.Rajaputhiram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Volkswagen Group sales India Pvt Rep By its General manager - Opp.Party(s)

m/s.Kirvbaharan

13 Oct 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 03.05.2018

Date of Disposal                : 13.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 59/2018

 

DATED THIS DAY THURSDAY THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

R.Sudhakar,

Son of Rajaputhiran,

No.737,B2 Brown Stone Apartment,

8^th Main Road, Ram nagar south,

Chennai-600 040.                                                          ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

1.   Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited

Represented by its General Manager,

4^th Floor, SilverUtobia, Cardinal Gracious Road,

Chakala, Andheri East,

Mumbai-400099

 

2.   KUN Capital Motors Pvt Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager,

No.64/103, Q Block, 3^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai-600 040.                                                          …..Opposite parties.

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.M.Kirubaharan, A.Thirumalai Raja       

                                                               and S.Uma Sankar

 

 Counsel for 1^st opposite party             : M/s.A.R.Ramanathan

 Counsel for 2^nd opposite party             : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.10,60,000/- and take back the car and to pay damages for deficiency in service which caused mental worry and hardship and expenses claimed for Rs.5,00,000/- as damages due to the deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he has purchased the Volkswagon polo GT (diesel)(grey metallic) model car manufactured by 1^st opposite party on 22.04.2016 for a sum of Rs.10,60,000/- and the vehicle registered bearing no. TN 22 DC 6567. Further stated that 21.05.2016 he handed over the car with the authorized service centre of the opposite parties complaining that the brake system of the car has to be checked since there is some fault in the brake discs.  The complainant take back the car after service that the brake fault is rectified.  On 3^rd June 2016 while he was driving the said car suddenly produced unusual noise from its wheel.  Immediately the complainant handed over the with the nearest authorized service station and he was shocked that the front brake discs needed a replacement as the existing brake discs broken. The complainant sent complaint E-mail to the opposite parties since the fault of the brake system is not rectified.  Since it was a less travelled new vehicle covered under warranty period the service station replaced the front disc brakes with new one. The complainant further stated that once again on 09.09.2016 the vehicle created a similar noise from its wheels and again taken to the service station where the complainant was informed that the front brake discs had been broken and needed for replacement.  The complainant stated that he was shocked that a new car can have so much defects within a short period of 4 months and he was made to make a payment on the assurance given by the service station that the similar issue will not arise in future.  The complainant further stated that on 17.12.2016 the car once again created a creepy noise from the front wheels making it a major accident. The car was taken to service station for a repair and its front disc brakes were replaced for the third time. The complainant stated that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties selling a manufacturing defective vehicle to the complainant. Further stated that the act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainant sent a legal notice to opposite parties on 04.01.2017. Further the complainant prayed that the refund the entire amount of Rs.10,60,000/- and take back the car with compensation.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

                   The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 1^st  opposite party submitted that when the car was reported to the workshop on 17.06.2016 the car had covered a mileage of 9581 kms which suggests that the complainant was in extensive use of the car from the date of purchase till the mentioned date.  Further stated that the issues concerning brakes not effective, further 1 set of brake pads for disc and brake disc of the car were replaced under warranty totally free of cost and the handed over the vehicle on 30.06.2016 to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party submitted that when the car was then reported to the workshop of the said dealer on dated 19.08.2016 the car had covered a mileage of 16124 kms which again suggests that the complainant was in extensive use of the car.  Further submitted that the car 1^st scheduled service (which is to be conducted on attaining 15000 kms or 1 year whichever is earlier) rattling noise clutch hare etc. and the car was repaired and handed over the vehicle on 31.08.2016 to the complainant. further 1 set of brake pads for disc and brake disc of the car were replaced under warranty totally free of cost.  The 1^st opposite party stated that the car was then reported to the workshop of the said dealer dated 18.12.2016 for issues relating to accidental damages. The opposite party 1 stated that required repairs were carried out by opposite party 2 totally free of cost under insurance policy and the same is handed over on 10.09.2016. The 1^st opposite party submitted that the car was last reported to the workshop of the said dealer on dated 24.04.2018 the car had covered a mileage of 48744 kms which again suggests that the complainant was in extensive use of the car.  The 1^st opposite party stated that the car was then reported to the workshop for issues relating to accidental damages and required repairs carried out by opposite party 2 with free of cost under insurance policy and handed over the car on 30.04.2018. The said dealer carried out repairs and rectifications in the car under warranty. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint may be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on part of the Opposite parties ?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  If so, to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A7.  The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked on his side. Opposite party 2 set exparte.

 4.POINT NO. 1

The fact that the complainant purchased volkswagon polo car from the 2^nd opposite party on 22.04.2016 and it was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party is not in dispute the 2^nd opposite party is authorized dealer and service center it is alleged by the complainant that on 21.05.2016 he handedover the over to the 2^nd opposite party complaining fault in the brake system and the 2^nd opposite party found some fault in the brake disc and it was rectified and again on 03.06.2016 the car suddenly produced unusual noise from its wheels and again the car handedover to the 2^nd opposite party and it needed a replacement of brake disc which were found to be broken and once again on 09.09.2016 there was similar noise from the wheels again it was taken to service station and the brake disc were replaced.  On 17.12.2016 once again there was noise from the wheels and there was a major accident at that time and the  car was taken to service station and front disc was replaced for the 3^rd time within 8 months of taking delivery and therefore the complainant contended that all the defects occurred during the warranty period and he was forced to make payments even during such warranty period and therefore alleged that there is inherent manufacturing defect and also deficiency in service and hence prayed for refund of Rs.10,60,000/- and to take back the car and also claimed damages.

5.  But on the otherhand it was contended by the 1^st opposite party that the vehicle passes through safety tests before deliver and contended that the complainant has falsely claimed manufacturing defect without any expert report and further stated that the complainant has availed free service for the vehicle and on 17.06.2016 the car had covered a mileage of 9581 kms and on 19.08.2016 it covered 16124 kms and on 24.04.2018 it covered 48744 kms which shows that the complainant has extensively used the car from the date of purchase and whenever the car was reported to the workshop subject to terms and conditions of the warranty bills were raised and charged and whenever the rectification was not possible under warranty the complainant was charged for the same and further stated that the mere replacement of brake pads and disc for twice or thrice will not entitled the complainant to seek for refund of entire price or replacement of car.

6.  Ex.A1 and A2 are tax invoice and certificate of registration in the name of complainant inrespect of the vehicle it is found that the car was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party and manufacture by the 1^st opposite party Ex.A3 to A5 are E-,mail communication  between the complainant and 1^st opposite party from which it is found that on 18.06.2016 the complainant alleged that there was brake failure in the vehicle and it is further found that the 1^st opposite party has advised the customer relationship manager to resolve the issue and further stated that the brake is a wear and tear item as per the warranty terms and conditions for Ex.A6 notice there was no reply.  The opposite party 1 has filed the warranty policy which is marked as Ex.B2 and B3 to B8 are tax invoice for the repair of the complainants vehicle.  It is  found from the documents filed by the 1^st opposite party the brake pad and disc was replaced by the 2^nd opposite party morethan twice within 8 months from the date of purchase, further according to the complainant there was noise coming from the wheels of the car which is due to the defect in the brake disc but as per the warranty conditions which were marked as Ex.B2 the repair to the brake system is only a wear and tear and it will not constitute a inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle unless the complainant prove the same through expert evidence which was done by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party also relied upon 2012 SCC Online NCDRC 790 and 2010 SCC Online NCDRC 144 and contended that the report of export is essential are some other evidence showing manufacturing defect but merely because the vehicle was taken to service station for one or two times does not ipso fact prove the manufacturing defect. In the present case also merely because there was noise in the wheel and there was replacement of front brake disc on three occasions that too free of cost two occasions by the 2^nd opposite party will not amount to manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st opposite party, it is found from the Ex.B8 that on 24.04.2018 the vehicle has covered 45744 kms and the complainant having run the vehicle for such a long kilometers within one year of purchase is not entitled to seek for refund of the entire sale price or replacement of the vehicle.  But at the same time it is found that the 2^nd opposite party has charged amount and raised bills during the visit of the complainant’s vehicle to its service station for repairs and some  of which even during the warranty period and further the same  reoccurrence of defect in the brake that too within the first 8 months taking delivery of the vehicle and its repair by the 2^nd opposite party will go to show that the 2^nd opposite party has not service to the vehicle and effected repairs in a proper manner by which the complainant was put to hardship as the vehicle was suddenly stopped while running which caused to him mental agony and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in not properly attending and rectifying the defect in the vehicle and hence the complainant is liable to be compensated by the 2^nd opposite party for the alleged deficiency in service as stated above. Point no.1 answered accordingly.

7. POINT NO.2

Based on finding given Point no.1 since there deficiency of service on part of 2^nd opposite party in not rectifying the defects properly in the vehicle and thereby  caused  hardship and mental agony to the complainant and hence the 2^nd opposite party liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation and also pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint and the complaint against the 1^st  opposite party is dismissed.

               In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The 2^nd Opposite Party is  directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for not rectifying the defects properly in the vehicle and thereby caused  hardship and mental agony to the complainant  and also pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of this complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment.  The complaint against the 1^st opposite party is dismissed.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13^th   day of October 2022.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	22.04.2016	Tax invoice.
Ex. A2	25.04.2016	Certificate of registration.
Ex. A3	18.06.2016	E-mail complaint.
Ex.A4	18.06.2016	E-Mail replies.
Ex.A5	22.06.2016	E-Mail reply.
Ex.A6	04.01.2017	Legal notice with receipts.
Ex.A7	06.01.2017	Proof of deliver.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY.

Ex. B1	11.01.2019	A copy of board resolution.
Ex.B2		Warranty Policy.
Ex.B3	30.06.2016	Tax invoice.
Ex.B4	30.06.2016	Satisfaction note.
Ex.B5	31.08.2016	Tax invoice.
Ex.B6	10.09.2016	Tax invoice.
Ex.B7	18.12.2016	Tax invoice.
Ex.B8	30.04.2018	Tax invoice.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT