Order No.  12  dt.  30/10/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Volkswagen Jetta car from o.p. no.2 and the said purchase was made in the month of Aug. 2010 at a price of Rs.14,26,171/-. The complainant in order to avoid mechanical complication of any kind opted to pay for the extended warranty to o.p. no.2 and accordingly o.p. no.2 issued an extended warranty to the complainant. The primary warranty and extended warranty both covered all internal mechanical defects and hazards with the assurance with such defects are to be remedied by o.p. company at their cost and expenses. The complainant noticed that from Aug.2010 itself various mechanical and technical problems arose in respect of the said car and he made contact with o.p. nos.1 and 2, but no relief was provided. The complainant from time to time visited the service centre of o.p. no.2 and he had to pay the repairing charges. The complainant subsequently sent detailed e-mail to o.p. no.3 citing all the recurring problems associated with the car. The complainant thereafter received an e-mail from o.p. no.1 that they will informer the o.p. no.2 to do the needful. In spite of request by the complainant, o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the problems faced by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant sent a demand notice to o.p. nos.1 and 2 and demanded Rs.20 lakhs as compensation from o.p. no.2. Since no action was taken and the car in question had the manufacturing defect, therefore the complainant had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for compensation of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest @ 18% per annum and other reliefs.

                In spite of receipt of notices the o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.

                In order to prove the case the complainant filed affidavit of evidence whereby the manger of the complainant stated that a Volkswagen Jetta car was purchased by the complainant from o.p. no.2 and the said purchase was made in the month of Aug. 2010 at a price of Rs.14,26,171/-. The complainant in order to avoid mechanical complication of any kind opted to pay for the extended warranty to o.p. no.2 and accordingly o.p. no.2 issued an extended warranty to the complainant. The primary warranty and extended warranty both covered all internal mechanical defects and hazards with the assurance with such defects are to be remedied by o.p. company at their cost and expenses. The complainant noticed that from Aug.2010 itself various mechanical and technical problems arose in respect of the said car and he made contact with o.p. nos.1 and 2, but no relief was provided. The complainant from time to time visited the service centre of o.p. no.2 and he had to pay the repairing charges. The complainant subsequently sent detailed e-mail to o.p. no.3 citing all the recurring problems associated with the car. The complainant thereafter received an e-mail from o.p. no.1 that they will informer the o.p. no.2 to do the needful. In spite of request by the complainant, o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the problems faced by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant sent a demand notice to o.p. nos.1 and 2 and demanded Rs.20 lakhs as compensation from o.p. no.2. Since no action was taken and the car in question had the manufacturing defect, therefore the complainant had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for compensation and other reliefs.

                On perusal of the materials on record we find that the complainant purchased the car from o.p. no.2 at a price of Rs.14,26,171/- and in order to prove the same the complainant filed the invoice. The complainant claimed that since the date of purchase he found that there were various mechanical defects and on numerous occasions he went to o.p. no.2, but no effective step was taken by o.p. no.2. Moreover, it was alleged that o.p. no.2 took the charges from the complainant during the period of warranty. The complainant has filed some documents showing that he made correspondences with the company and the company also replied to the complainant wherefrom it is evident that the complainant was asked to place the car for the purpose of checking at their end and the cooperation was sought for from the complainant. The o.p. no.2 was entrusted by o.p. no.1 to look into the grievance of the complainant and o.p. no.2 in their reply started that after sale of the car, the car had visited the workshop on 5.9.11 for 1^st oil change service and subsequently further services were provided twice, but during that time there was no issue as to music system reported or no part was issued other than consumable items and the car was taken delivery after service to the satisfaction of the complainant. The allegation of music system was made subsequently in the month of Sept. 2013 i.e. after 3 years from the date of purchase of the said car and o.ps. on the basis of the said complaint by the complainant extended the warranty without any cost and charges. In the month of Jan 2014 after run of the vehicle for 29,994 kms. the vehicle reported for service at the workshop and after necessary repairing the vehicle was taken delivery to the full satisfaction of the complainant. In the month of Feb. 2014 the car had to remain in the workshop for a period of nearly 25 days since the part (pressure censer) had to be replaced which was covered under 4^th of extended warranty. The said part had to arrive from Germany to the workshop of o.p. no.2. On arrival of the said part the same was replaced without any charges and cost as it was within the period of extended warranty. The o.p. no.2 in the reply to the complainant categorically stated that on 25.8.15 the vehicle after plying 41,915 kms. was brought to the workshop for oil change service and it was reported that air-condition is cooling loss, the music system getting off suddenly for estimation for carrying out the repair an estimate was given to the complainant of Rs.15,000/-, but the complainant left the workshop without repairing those defects. Subsequently the complainant arrived at the workshop of o.p. and made false allegation against the defects of the said vehicle.

                From the materials on record and the correspondences made between the parties it appears that during the warranty period o.p. no.2 provided the necessary repairing without charging any amount. The complainant claimed that the vehicle was defective since the date of purchase, but it appears that the vehicle after plying 41,915 kms. some minor defects arose for which the complainant reported to o.p. no.2 and while o.p. no.2 was taking measure for repairing the same the complainant left with the car and subsequently filed this case making false allegation against the o.ps. In order to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant did not provide any expert’s opinion of any automobile engineer to prove that there was manufacturing defect. The vehicle was taken to workshop a number of times and it has been repaired. In absence of any credible evidence that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle the complainant is not entitled to such replacement of vehicle or refund of the entire price of the vehicle. The vehicle having used for last 7 years or so, the complainant is not entitled either to its replacement or to price paid by him for it [relied on a decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 716 (NC)]. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.35/2016 is dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.ps.      

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.