PRESENT
Complainant by Adv. Wankhede present.
Opponent by Adv. Anuja Desai present.
ORDER
(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President.)
1. The complainant purchased Volkswagen Passat, C white B class on 23/06/2008 from GMS Motors Worli Mumbai.
2. According to complainant since the purchased of the said car, he found that the engine was getting heated up and oil coolant gets dried up faster. There was inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle and he was required to change the coolant and oil after every 3 to 4 days.
3. The complainant had given the car for checking the problems on 29/11/2010, 17/11/2011, 21/01/2011 and complaints were registered with various service centers of company. The complainant was extremely frustrated when realized the pathetic levels of service being offered for a car that he bought by paying Rs. Thirty two lakhs.
4. The complainant sent letter on 21/05/2011 to opposite party requesting them to make up for the mistake by looking into the matter and replacing car and also for compensation. The opposite parties failed to take proper steps as per letter and subsequent reminders.
5. According to complainant, opposite parties are guilty for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by supplying the car which is having inherent manufacturing defect. The complainant was required to spent Rs. 88,117/- ( Rupees eighty eight thousand one hundred and seventeen only) for repairs during 30/11/2010. to 26/03/2011.
6. The complainant prayed for direction to opposite parties to arrange the replacement either the car or engine, to reimburse Rs. 88,117/- towards amount spend for repair, pay compensation of Rs. Ten Lakhs for mental agony and cost of Rs Ten Thousand.
7. The opposite parties failed written statement and resisted the claim. It is alleged that, in order to secure replacement of the said car or engine, the complainant is required to discharged the burden of providing that there are manufacturing defects in the said car. Manufacturing defects are defects due to which the vehicle cannot function.
8. The opposite parties stated that, grievances made by the complainant in relation to the said car are of minor nature. The warranty given to the complainant is limited to the defective parts and admittedly the parts which were found to be necessary were replaced during servicing the car.
9. The opposite parties stated that complainant has done nothing, more than wilful attempt to extract money from opponent on false and frivolous grounds. The warranty for two years on the said car has already elapsed. The authorized dealers had attended the alleged complaints and no cause of action arise to file the complaint.
10. The opponent submitted in para 14 of written statement that on 29/11/2010, the said car was submitted to authorized dealer in Mumbai for minor repairs after using the car for more than 63000/- k.m. There was no abnormality in the same. In para 15 opponent stated that on 17/01/2011 said car was submitted to authorized dealer and gear oil and oil filter were replaced as per standard replacement.
11. The opponent submitted in para 16 of written statement that, breakdown of car on 21/02/2011 at express highway cannot be attributable to inherent manufacturing defect as the incident occurred after two years and eight months, when car had already traveled more than 70,000/- k.m. It is submitted that, routine maintenance, minor repairs and replacement of certain part in vehicle cannot be treated as inherent defect.
12. The opponent stated that, said car was always attended at every authorized dealer diligently, the complainant has signed a satisfaction note on 21/06/2011. All the bills mentioned in para 10 of complaint relate to the period after expiry of warranty. All claims for compensation and cost were denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
13. We have heard learned counsel for opposite party Adv. Tuljapurkar as well as perused written argument filed by complainant. Perused complaint, written statement, affidavit of evidence as well as all documents produced on record by both sides.
14. Admittedly complainant purchased the car in June, 2008 and the warranty period is of two years. The sad car traveled more than 63000/-k.m. on 25/11/2010, more than 70000/- k.m. on 17/01/2011 and more than 74000/- k.m on 20/02/2011. All these services were made after the expiration of warranty period.
15. We have carefully perused the documents filed by complainant with list, particularly copy of emails exchanged between the complainant and opposite parties, complainant’s letter dated 21/02/2011 to opponent , opponent letter dated 03/06/2011 and copy of complainant's letter dated 13/07/2011. All these letters and email pertain to the period after warranty. We have not found any complaint regarding the functioning of car during June 2008 to June 2010 which is the warranty period.
16. As per law, the burden to prove defect in the vehicle is on the complainant, by filing expert opinion regarding manufacturing defect. In the present case, complainant is subjected to inconvenience due to break down of car on Mumbai-Pune Express Highway, however there is no evidence to prove that alleged incident took place due to inherent manufacturing defect.
17. In absence of evidence, we hold that complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitle for replacement of engine or car and also for compensation of ten lakhs claimed by him.
18. In the result, we pass the following order.
Order
- RBT Complaint Case No. 474/2011 is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this order be sent to both parties.
